Post on 11-Aug-2021
CONSERVATION PRACTICES
AT FOREIGN-RUN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS
IN TURKEY: A CRITICAL REVIEW
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
BİLGE NİLGÜN ÖZ WOOD
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN
CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
IN
ARCHITECTURE
DECEMBER 2017
Approval of the Thesis:
CONSERVATION PRACTICES AT
FOREIGN-RUN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS
IN TURKEY: A CRITICAL REVIEW
submitted by BİLGE NİLGÜN ÖZ WOOD in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Conservation of
Cultural Heritage in Architecture Department, Middle East Technical
University by,
Prof. Dr. Gülbin Dural Ünver _____________
Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. T. Elvan Altan _____________
Head of Department, Architecture
Assoc. Prof. Dr. A. Güliz Bilgin Altınöz _____________
Supervisor, Architecture Department, METU
Examining Committee Members:
Prof. Dr. Neriman Şahin Güçhan _____________
Architecture Department, METU
Assoc. Prof. Dr. A. Güliz Bilgin Altınöz _____________
Architecture Department, METU
Prof. Dr. D. Burcu Erciyas _____________
City and Regional Planning Department, METU
Prof. Dr. M. Cengiz Can _____________
Architecture Department, Yıldız Technical University
Senior Lecturer Alan M. Greaves (UK) _____________
Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology,
University of Liverpool
Date: 08.12.2017
iv
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained
and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I
also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited
and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last Name : BİLGE NİLGÜN ÖZ WOOD
Signature :
v
ABSTRACT
CONSERVATION PRACTICES
AT FOREIGN-RUN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS
IN TURKEY: A CRITICAL REVIEW
Öz Wood, Bilge Nilgün
Ph.D. in Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Department Architecture
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. A. Güliz Bilgin Altınöz
December 2017, 504 pages
Foreign-run excavations are a significant component of archaeological
research in Turkey, however, conservation work carried out at these
excavations has not been examined in a holistic manner. This research
investigates archaeological conservation at foreign-run excavations to identify
the scale and nature of differing contributions, and to determine changing
approaches, issues impacting conservation practices, as well as possible
catalysts, influences and driving forces. The thematic scope, ‘conservation of
archaeological sites’ and related practices, includes technical, socio-political
and economic perspectives in a way that reflects developing trends in heritage
conservation. The temporal scope of this research concentrates on the period
1979-2014. The sources used are previously published literature, interviews
with directors, conservation professionals and the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism, as well as site observations. A representative sample of 19 foreign-
run excavations was selected.
vi
The research has identified a significant move towards the integration of
conservation work into archaeological processes, and also that architectural
conservation remains a major focus at almost all of the sites. Despite the
widening scope of conservation practices to embrace the use of management
planning and the involvement of local communities, these remain less
widespread. The growing variety of funding sources has enabled the
implementation of numerous large and small-scale conservation projects but
conservation work, primarily architectural conservation, has been mostly
implemented through private funding. Issues such as the Ministry of Culture
and Tourism’s lack of consultation, its architectural emphasis on conservation,
as well as institutional cooperation, are some of the more pressing problems,
while pervading links between Turkey’s repatriation efforts and archaeological
permits also impact conservation. International guidelines, operational and
regulatory frameworks, financial sources, differences in national approaches,
and key individuals are identified as various possible catalysts, influences and
driving forces behind conservation practices.
Keywords: Conservation of Archaeological Sites, Cultural Heritage
Conservation, Foreign-run Archaeological Excavation, Foreign
Archaeological Project
vii
ÖZ
TÜRKİYE’DE YABANCILAR TARAFINDAN YÜRÜTÜLEN
ARKEOLOJİK KAZILARDAKİ KORUMA ÇALIŞMALARI:
ELEŞTİREL BİR İNCELEME
Öz Wood, Bilge Nilgün
Doktora, Kültür Mirasının Korunması, Mimarlık Bölümü
Danışman: Doç. Dr. A. Güliz Bilgin Altınöz
Aralık 2017, 504 sayfa
Türkiye’deki arkeolojik araştırmaların önemli bir parçasını oluşturan yabancı
kazılardaki koruma çalışmaları bugüne kadar bütüncül bir şekilde
incelenmemiştir. Bu araştırma, bu kazılarda gerçekleştirilen koruma
çalışmalarının boyutunu ve kapsamını, değişen yaklaşımları, çalışmaları
etkileyen etmenleri ve çalışmaların arkasında yatan olası katalizörlerle itici
güçleri belirlemeyi ve değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın tematik
kapsamını oluşturan ‘arkeolojik alanların koruması’ ve ilgili pratikler, kültür
mirasının korunmasındaki gelişmeleri yansıtacak şekilde korumanın teknik,
sosyo-politik ve ekonomik boyutlarını içermektedir. Araştırmanın zamansal
kapsamını 1979-2014 yılları arası oluşturmaktadır. Daha önce yayınlanmış
basılı kaynakların yanı sıra yabancı kazı başkanları, koruma uzmanları ve
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı ile yapılan görüşmeler ve arazi gözlemleri
araştırmanın kaynaklarını oluşturmaktadır. İnceleme, temsilen seçilen 19
yabancı arkeolojik kazı üzerinde yapılmıştır.
viii
Araştırma, koruma çalışmalarının arkeolojik süreçlere belirgin bir şekilde
dahil olma yolunda olduğunu ve neredeyse çalışılan tüm kazılarda mimari
koruma çalışmalarının en önemli odak noktasını oluşturduğunu
göstermektedir. Koruma çalışmalarının kapsamı yönetim planlaması ve yerel
toplulukların koruma etkinliklerine katılımını da içerecek şekilde genişlemiş
olsa da bu tür çalışmalar pek yaygınlaşmamıştır. Maddi kaynakların
çeşitliliğinin artmasının birçok küçük ve büyük ölçekli koruma projesinin
gerçekleştirilmesine olanak sağladığı ancak özellikle mimari koruma
çalışmalarının daha çok özel kurum ve şahıslardan sağlanan kaynakların
yardımıyla gerçekleştirildiği tespit edilmiştir. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı’nın
tarafları bilgilendirmesi ve onlara danışmasındaki eksiklikler ve korumayı
daha çok mimari ölçekte ele almasının yanı sıra kurumlararası işbirbirliğinin
yetersiz olması önemli sorunlardan bazılarıdır. Bununla beraber Türkiye’nin
yurtdışından bazı eski eserlerin geri alınması konusundaki çalışmaları ve
bunun arkeolojik kazı izinleriyle ilişkilendirilmesi koruma çalışmalarını
etkilemektedir. Uluslararası ilkeler, yasal ve yönetsel çerçeveler, maddi
kaynaklar, farklı ulusal ve kişisel yaklaşımların koruma pratiklerinin arkasında
yatan bazı katalizörler, etkiler ve itici güçler olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Arkeolojik Alanların Korunması, Kültür Mirasının
Korunması, Yabancı Arkeolojik Kazı, Yabancı Arkeolojik Proje
ix
To my parents
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research owes much to a large number of people. Firstly, I would like to
extend my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Güliz Bilgin Altınöz. Her
guidance and critical judgement throughout the process have been of utmost
importance. Cevat Erder has seen this research develop from its inception, and
his valuable comments and encouragement have been especially welcome. I
am grateful to my Thesis Monitoring Committee members at METU, Neriman
Şahin Güçhan, and Burcu Erciyas for their support and constructive comments.
Gül Pulhan, a former member of the Thesis Monitoring Committee, also made
valuable contributions in the earlier stages of this research. Special thanks go
to Alan Greaves, whose warm welcome and support during my visiting
research fellowship at the University of Liverpool greatly contributed to this
research. I thoroughly appreciated his recommendations as a member of the
Thesis Examining Committee, as well as those of Cengiz Can of Yıldız
Technical University. At METU, I would also particularly like to thank Nimet
Özgönül, my supervisor for my MSc in Restoration, and Ayşıl T. Yavuz for
their continued guidance and support.
I would like to express my gratitude to all the directors who welcomed me at
their archaeological excavations. They, together with conservation
professionals in their teams, gave significant amounts of time during their
hectic schedules and responded enthusiastically to my questions. Their
contribution has been invaluable. The Mediterranean site visits were funded
by the Suna-İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations
(AKMED).
My fellowship at the University of Liverpool provided an ideal research
environment and library facilities that helped me formulate and develop my
initial ideas. I also benefitted greatly from communal academic setting of the
xi
Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (RCAC/ANAMED) in Istanbul
during my BIAA-RCAC fellowship.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my friends: to Sermin Çakıcı Alp
for her wholehearted encouragement and for lending a supportive ear, to Zehra
Tulunoğlu for hosting me during my many stays in Ankara and for
accompanying me on my very last site visit, to Oya Bakacak, Tuba Akar,
Gökçe Şimşek and Ege Yıldırım for their kind support and encouragement, to
Ali Çifçi for taking me under his wing in Liverpool and for his friendship ever
since, to Pınar Kuşseven and Nurşen Kul for providing crucial regulatory and
academic texts, to Hakan Öztaner and Musa Kadıoğlu for kindly answering my
questions over the years, to Özgün Özçakır for coming to the rescue about
university procedures, and to David Stronach for his wisdom from across the
ocean. I would also particularly like to thank Cengiz Kabaoğlu and Gülgün
Kabaoğlu (KA-BA Ltd) for their encouragement throughout this research, as
well as to Ömer Ekim for technical support in the final stages.
My closest circle, my dear family, has been the most inspirational of all. To
my brother Burkay Öz, I owe so much. As my personal guru, he has been
incredible in helping me keep calm and develop new perspectives on my
research. His love, support and encouragement have been invaluable. My
husband Jason Wood has been with me through my entire PhD-adventure,
during all the ups and downs. Our exciting journeys across Turkey as well as
endless discussions in trying to make sense of the immense wealth of
information have been fundamental in structuring and finalising this complex
research. His love, patience, support, and firm belief in me have been more
important than I can put into words.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Beyhan and Ali Öz. Who could have
foreseen that taking me to Sardis when I could barely walk would presage a
life-long interest in archaeology and cultural heritage? Together they have
created the most viable conditions for me, and without a doubt it is their
xii
presence that has enabled me to pursue this interest. Their deep, unconditional
love, unwavering support and encouragement have kept me going at tough
times and pushed me forward when I felt disheartened. I am eternally grateful
and proud to have them as my parents. Today, I am happy to present this work
as a testament of my love for them. I only wish my father could have been with
us. This research is dedicated to my mother and to the loving memory of my
father.
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... v
ÖZ .............................................................................................................. vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. x
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................. xiii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... xviii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... xviiii
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
1.1 Contextual background ................................................................ 2
1.2 Aim and scope ........................................................................... 27
1.3 Methodology ............................................................................. 32
1.3.1 Selection of sites ........................................................... 33
1.3.2 Sources and constraints ................................................. 38
1.3.2.1 ERM proceedings and other literary sources . 38
1.3.2.2 Interviews ....................................................... 44
1.3.2.3 Data collection and storage ............................ 47
1.4 Contents ..................................................................................... 48
2. REGULATORY CONTEXT REGARDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSERVATION AND FOREIGN-RUN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EXCAVATIONS IN TURKEY ............................................................ 51
2.1 Regulatory framework ............................................................... 51
2.1.1 The Ottoman period ...................................................... 52
2.1.2 Early Republic period ................................................... 58
2.1.3 1973-1983 ..................................................................... 63
2.1.4 1983-2004 ..................................................................... 67
xiv
2.1.5 2004-2009 ..................................................................... 70
2.1.6 2009 to the present ........................................................ 73
2.2 Requirements concerning foreign-run archaeological projects . 78
2.2.1 Permit applications........................................................ 79
2.2.2 Monitoring of archaeological excavations .................... 81
2.2.3 Obligations .................................................................... 82
2.2.4 Assessment procedures ................................................. 84
2.3 Review ....................................................................................... 85
3. CONSERVATION PRACTICES AT SELECTED FOREIGN-RUN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS IN TURKEY (1979-2014) . 89
3.1 Austria ....................................................................................... 91
3.1.1 Ephesos ......................................................................... 91
3.2 Belgium ................................................................................... 103
3.2.1 Sagalassos ................................................................... 103
3.3 France ...................................................................................... 113
3.3.1 Labraunda ................................................................... 113
3.4 Germany .................................................................................. 119
3.4.1 Doliche ........................................................................ 119
3.4.2 Göbekli Tepe ............................................................... 123
3.4.3 Hattusha ...................................................................... 132
3.4.4 Pergamon .................................................................... 140
3.4.5 Priene .......................................................................... 151
3.4.6 Troy ............................................................................. 157
3.5 Italy .......................................................................................... 165
3.5.1 Arslantepe ................................................................... 165
3.5.2 Elaiussa Sebaste .......................................................... 171
3.5.3 Hierapolis .................................................................... 176
3.5.4 Kyme ........................................................................... 185
3.5.5 Yumuktepe .................................................................. 189
xv
3.6 Japan ........................................................................................ 193
3.6.1 Kaman-Kalehöyük ...................................................... 193
3.7 United Kingdom ...................................................................... 200
3.7.1 Çatalhöyük .................................................................. 200
3.8 USA ......................................................................................... 214
3.8.1 Aphrodisias ................................................................. 214
3.8.2 Gordion ....................................................................... 221
3.8.3 Sardis........................................................................... 234
4. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES .... 245
4.1 Conservation practices ............................................................ 245
4.1.1 Conservation work ...................................................... 245
4.1.1.1 Site conservation .......................................... 246
4.1.1.2 Site presentation ........................................... 264
4.1.1.3 Management planning .................................. 267
4.1.1.4 Conservation principles and
standardization ............................................. 270
4.1.1.5 Review ......................................................... 277
4.1.2 People in the conservation practice ............................. 280
4.1.2.1 Professions and remit .................................. 281
4.1.2.2 Standards-setters .......................................... 286
4.1.2.3 Mobility and exchange ................................ 287
4.1.2.4 Advisory bodies ........................................... 288
4.1.2.5 Review ......................................................... 290
4.1.3 Forms of community engagement .............................. 291
4.1.3.1 Community education ................................. 292
4.1.3.2 Outreach and development projects ............ 295
4.1.3.3 Capacity building ........................................ 296
4.1.3.4 Confidence building and empowerment ...... 298
4.1.3.5 Digital engagement ...................................... 299
xvi
4.1.3.6 Review ......................................................... 303
4.1.4 Funding of conservation ............................................. 305
4.1.4.1 Sources ........................................................ 305
4.1.4.2 Types of projects and their financial
sources ......................................................... 316
4.1.4.3 Types of funding used by countries ............ 320
4.1.4.4 Review ......................................................... 322
4.1.5 Discussion / emerging themes .................................... 323
4.1.5.1 Integration of archaeology and
conservation ................................................. 324
4.1.5.2 Responsibility for conservation ................... 330
4.1.5.3 Visibility of conservation ............................ 335
4.1.5.4 Engagement with local communities .......... 337
4.2 Issues impacting conservation practices .................................. 347
4.2.1 Operational and regulatory issues ............................... 348
4.2.1.1 Consultation ................................................. 349
4.2.1.2 Emphasis on extensive architectural
interventions ................................................ 351
4.2.1.3 Institutional cooperation .............................. 354
4.2.1.4 Duration of excavations ............................... 357
4.2.1.5 Co/assistant-directorships ............................ 359
4.2.1.6 Repatriation efforts ...................................... 360
4.2.1.7 One-fits-all approach ................................... 367
4.2.1.8 Expectation of fast results ........................... 369
4.2.1.9 Assessment of excavations .......................... 369
4.2.1.10 Subsidies ...................................................... 371
4.2.2 Financial issues ........................................................... 372
4.2.3 Local dimension .......................................................... 373
4.2.4 Professional resources ................................................. 375
4.2.5 Discussion / emerging themes .................................... 376
xvii
4.2.5.1 MoCT’s approach towards archaeological
sites and their conservation ......................... 379
4.2.5.2 Attitudes towards foreign-run
archaeological presence ............................... 391
4.3 Catalysts, influences and driving forces: a discussion ............ 403
4.3.1 International guidelines and developments in the
field of conservation .................................................... 404
4.3.2 Operational and regulatory context in Turkey ............ 405
4.3.3 Financial sources ......................................................... 410
4.3.4 Differences in national approaches ............................. 413
4.3.5 Key individuals ........................................................... 417
5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 419
5.1 Ways forward .......................................................................... 422
5.2 Further research ....................................................................... 426
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 429
CURRICULUM VITAE .............................................................................. 499
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 1.1 Selected case study sites ................................................................ 37
Table 2.1 MoCT’s financial and other requirements ..................................... 83
Table 4.1 Noteworthy building-scale projects ............................................. 247
Table 4.2 External advice ............................................................................ 287
Table 4.3 Mobility of conservation professionals ....................................... 288
Table 4.4 Websites and social media........................................................... 300
Table 4.5 Sample projects ........................................................................... 316
Table 4.6 Conservation practices in 1979-2014. ......................................... 326
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Foreign-run projects by country ................................................... 33
Figure 1.2 Foreign-run archaeological excavations in the early 2010s (the
author using MoCT lists given at www.kultur.gov.tr) .................................. 34
Figure 1.3 Affiliated countries ...................................................................... 36
Figure 1.4 Regional distribution of the selected sites .................................... 37
Figure 1.5 Foreign-run archaeological excavations investigated
in this research ............................................................................................... 39
Figure 3.1 Site plan (Gesellschaft der Freunde von Ephesos) ....................... 92
Figure 3.2 Library of Celsus (left), Artemision (right) (the author 2011) ..... 94
Figure 3.3 Terrace House 2 before excavations (left); upper housing units
(cover structure completed in 1985) and the temporary eternit shelters (right)
(Krinzinger 2000b:47, 125) ........................................................................... 96
Figure 3.4 Existing shelter (Arsinoe, Wikimedia Commons); visitor paths (the
author 2011) ................................................................................................... 97
Figure 3.5 Plan depicting conservation interventions (Koder & Ladstaetter
2011:295) ....................................................................................................... 98
Figure 3.6 Site plan (Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project) ........... 104
Figure 3.7 Neon Library (the author 2012) ................................................. 105
Figure 3.8 The Antonine Nymphaeum (left) and the Northwest Heroon (right)
(the author 2012) ......................................................................................... 106
Figure 3.9 Documentation of the theatre (Göze Üner Architects) .............. 106
Figure 3.10 Visitor routes A, B and C (Sagalassos Archaeological Research
Project) ........................................................................................................ 108
Figure 3.11 Visitor centre at Sagalassos (Göze Üner Architects) ............... 108
Figure 3.12 Sagalassos Project’s website (left), Sagalassos-Ağlasun website
(right) ........................................................................................................... 112
xx
Figure 3.13 Site plan (Hellström 1991:298) ................................................ 114
Figure 3.14 Visual mapping of weathering and structural problems by METU
(Henry et al. 2014:258) ............................................................................... 116
Figure 3.15 Jupiter Dolichenus Sanctuary – Dülük Baba Tepesi (Blömer &
Winter 2015:54) ........................................................................................... 119
Figure 3.16 Consolidation measures (the author 2012); shelter for the stone
blocks (Blömer & Winter 2014:207) ........................................................... 121
Figure 3.17. Website of the Doliche Project ............................................... 123
Figure 3.18 Main excavation areas (Dietrich et al. 2014:12) ...................... 124
Figure 3.19 Conservation work (the author 2012) ...................................... 126
Figure 3.20 View of the winning design
(kleyer.koblitz.letzel.freivogel.architekten 2011)........................................ 127
Figure 3.21 Drawings of the shelter (EiSat 2013) ....................................... 127
Figure 3.22 Design of the second shelter (EiSat 2014) ............................... 127
Figure 3.23 Temporary shelter (Dietrich et al. 2014:11) ............................ 128
Figure 3.24 Visitor walkway (the author 2012) .......................................... 129
Figure 3.25 Site plan of Hattusha (Schachner 2015:219) ............................ 133
Figure 3.26 Yerkapı east section before and after intervention (Seeher
2012:162, 164) ............................................................................................. 135
Figure 3.27 Chamber 2 (Hieroglyphic Chamber) (the author 2015) ........... 135
Figure 3.28 Replacement of the warrior-god copy (left) (Seeher 2012:191); its
current condition (right) (the author 2015) .................................................. 136
Figure 3.29 Reconstruction of the head at the Lion’s Gate (the author 2015)
..................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 3.30 Sphinx replicas at the Sphinx Gate (the author 2015).............. 137
Figure 3.31 The reconstructed section of the fortification walls (the author
2015) ............................................................................................................ 138
Figure 3.32 Before and after views of the Temple of Trajan (Radt 1999:139)
..................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 3.33 Bau Z (the author 2011) ........................................................... 144
Figure 3.34 Inside of the tower (the author 2011) ....................................... 145
xxi
Figure 3.35 General concept of the new visitor route
(Bachmann 2014c:108) ............................................................................... 146
Figure 3.36 Visitor route in and around the Red Hall and the Gymnasium
(Bachmann 2014a:196, 2014b:99) .............................................................. 147
Figure 3.37 Site plan of Priene (Raeck 2006b:316) .................................... 152
Figure 3.38 Site conservation concept – priority areas, by J. M. Klessing and
A. Hoffschildt (Raeck et al. 2014:67) ......................................................... 154
Figure 3.39 Conservation measures defined by J.M. Klessing Architects
(Filges 2015:185) ......................................................................................... 155
Figure 3.40 Site presentation, by J. M. Klessing and A. Hoffschildt (Raeck et
al. 2014:67) .................................................................................................. 156
Figure 3.41 Site plan (Riorden 2009:120) ................................................... 158
Figure 3.42 The shelter (the author 2011) ................................................... 161
Figure 3.43 Information panel in front of the shelter (the author 2011) ..... 161
Figure 3.44 The Semple House (the author 2011) ...................................... 163
Figure 3.45 Arslantepe mound and excavated areas
(Frangipane 2011:969) ................................................................................ 166
Figure 3.46 The new shelter covering the Palatial Complex
(the author 2011) ......................................................................................... 168
Figure 3.47 Interior views of the new shelter (the author 2011) ................. 168
Figure 3.48 Visitor route, information panels and the reconstructed house (the
author 2011) ................................................................................................. 169
Figure 3.49. Site plan of Elaiussa Sebaste (Equini Schneider 2008:304) ... 171
Figure 3.50. Views from the Agora and Basilica area (the author 2012) .... 173
Figure 3.51 Website of Elaiussa Sebaste (elaiussa.uniroma1.it/) ................ 175
Figure 3.52 Site plan (Arthur 2012:276, 304) ............................................. 176
Figure 3.53 Reconstruction of the floor of the scaenae frons by architect Paolo
Mighetto (D'Andria 2008:422–423) ............................................................ 177
Figure 3.54 Reconstruction/restoration of the Bridge of St Philip (ed. Başgelen
2013:38) ....................................................................................................... 179
Figure 3.55 Shelters for houses in Insula 104
(D'Andria 2009:406, 2012:493) ................................................................... 179
xxii
Figure 3.56 Structural consolidation of the eastern wall of the Baths-Basilica
(MAIER 2007:8), and the vault (D'Andria 2015:216) ................................ 179
Figure 3.57 St. Philip’s Tomb and the church (the author 2011) ................ 180
Figure 3.58 Anastylosis of the templon of St. Philip’s Church (D'Andria
2015:222) ..................................................................................................... 180
Figure 3.59 Manual removal of calcareous deposits (the author 2011) ...... 180
Figure 3.60 Frontinus Street today and its 3D reconstruction (Missione
Hierapolis 2012) 181
Figure 3.61 The three visitor itineraries at Hierapolis
(D'Andria 2006b:115) .................................................................................. 182
Figure 3.62 Hierapolis project website ........................................................ 185
Figure 3.63 Aerial view of Kyme (La Marca 2016:226) ............................. 186
Figure 3.64 The castle (the author 2011) ..................................................... 187
Figure 3.65 Stratigraphy of Yumuktepe (Caneva & Jean 2016:17) ............ 190
Figure 3.66 Archaeological park project of 1993
(Sevin & Caneva 1995:38) .......................................................................... 191
Figure 3.67 Stratigraphic layers of the site (model in the site museum) (the
author 2015) ................................................................................................. 193
Figure 3.68 Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology
(the author 2015) ......................................................................................... 194
Figure 3.69 JIAA and the site museum (Google Earth) .............................. 194
Figure 3.70 Exterior and interior of the museum (the author 2015)............ 195
Figure 3.71 Shelters of corrugated sheets covering excavated areas (the author
2015) ............................................................................................................ 196
Figure 3.72 Shelter covering an excavated trench (the author 2015) .......... 197
Figure 3.73 Site plan (The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:9) ........ 200
Figure 3.74 Shelter above Building 5 when it was built (Hodder 1999b) ... 202
Figure 3.75 South Shelter (left) (Omacan 2009:34); (right)
(the author 2015) ......................................................................................... 202
Figure 3.76 The North Shelter (left) (Omacan 2009:38); interior (right) (the
author 2015) ................................................................................................. 203
xxiii
Figure 3.77 The strategic plan for site conservation devised by F. Matero
(Matero 2000:80) ......................................................................................... 203
Figure 3.78 The texture board designed by the Visualisation Team in 2013 (the
author 2015); the new information panels designed by the Visualisation Team
in 2013 (the author 2015) ............................................................................ 205
Figure 3.79 The Experimental House at Çatalhöyük (the author 2015) ...... 206
Figure 3.80 “Köyden Görüntüler” exhibition at the Çatalhöyük Museum (the
author 2015) ................................................................................................. 212
Figure 3.81 Archaeology workshop in 2015 (the author 2015) .................. 212
Figure 3.82 Local women engaged in conservation (Çatalhöyük Research
Project) ........................................................................................................ 213
Figure 3.83 Çatalhöyük’s most recent website ............................................ 214
Figure 3.84 Site plan (Ratté 2008:14) ......................................................... 215
Figure 3.85 The Tetrapylon (the author 2011) ............................................ 216
Figure 3.86 (left) Goodman’s interpretive stabilization technique (Goodman
2002:208), (right) its implementation (Goodman 2005:227) ...................... 226
Figure 3.87 Citadel site conservation plan and phases of implementation
(www.conlab.org/acl/gordion/con_manage.html) ....................................... 227
Figure 3.88 Soft capping (the author 2015) ................................................. 228
Figure 3.89 (left) Backfilled terrace buildings (the author 2015, (right)
conserved terrace buildings (the author 2015) ............................................ 228
Figure 3.90 The scaffolding erected in 2014 for the new interventions at the
monumental gateway (left) (the author 2015); dismantled and repaired stone
from the gateway (right) (the author 2015) ................................................. 228
Figure 3.91 Information panel describing architectural conservation efforts at
the site (the author 2015) ............................................................................. 229
Figure 3.92 Design and proto-type of the viewing stations (Gordion Project)
..................................................................................................................... 230
Figure 3.93 Village women at work prior to the field season (E. del Bono)233
Figure 3.94 Digital Gordion website (http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/)
..................................................................................................................... 233
Figure 3.95 Site plan (Sardis Archaeological Expedition) .......................... 235
Figure 3.96 Reconstructed Lydian building (the author 2015) ................... 236
xxiv
Figure 3.97 (left) sketch of the shelter (Greenewalt 1999: 14) and (right) view
in 2011 (the author) ..................................................................................... 237
Figure 3.98 The steps and the perimeter wall (left) (the author 2015); (right)
infill in the perimeter wall (right) (the author 2011) ................................... 238
Figure 3.99 (left) Preliminary shelter design for the Synagogue (The
Archaeological Exploration of Sardis); (right) the situation regarding the
Lydian fortification with the temporary shelter in the fore-ground (the author
2015) ............................................................................................................ 239
Figure 3.100 Butler’s crane and related information panel (the
author 2011) ................................................................................................. 240
Figure 3.101 Women from Sart cleaning the Temple (the author 2015) .... 242
Figure 3.102 Sardis project website (The Archaeological Exploration of
Sardis) .......................................................................................................... 243
Figure 4.1 Temple of Trajan, Pergamon (the author 2011) ......................... 247
Figure 4.2 View of the Lydian Altar, Sardis (the author 2015) .................. 248
Figure 4.3 City wall reconstruction, Hattusha (the author 2015) ................ 249
Figure 4.4 Reconstructed cross-section, the Red Hall, Pergamon (Pirson et al.
2015:392) ..................................................................................................... 250
Figure 4.5 Stone capping, Sardis (the author 2015) .................................... 252
Figure 4.6 Mortar capping, Aphrodisias (Proudfoot & Severson 2010:203–
204) .............................................................................................................. 253
Figure 4.7 Mortar capping, Priene (the author 2011) .................................. 253
Figure 4.8 Soft capping, Gordion (the author 2015) ................................... 254
Figure 4.9 Use of basalt to distinguish infill, Pergamon
(Bachmann 2014b:95) ................................................................................. 255
Figure 4.10 Use of broken slates to distinguish infill, Sardis
(the author 2011) ......................................................................................... 255
Figure 4.11 Examples of the infill technique, Troy (the author 2011) ........ 255
Figure 4.12 Biocide applied surfaces vs ‘uncleaned’ surfaces, Sardis (the
author 2015) ................................................................................................. 256
Figure 4.13 Shelter for the Middle City excavations, Sagalassos (the author
2011) ............................................................................................................ 258
xxv
Figure 4.14 Troy (left) (the author 2011), Çatalhöyük (right) (the author
2015) ............................................................................................................ 259
Figure 4.15 Shelter of Bau Z, Pergamon (the author 2011) ........................ 260
Figure 4.16 New walls on top of original walls (left), and exhibited fragments
(right), Pergamon (the author 2011) ............................................................ 260
Figure 4.17 Maintenance of the city wall (before and after; same season),
Hattusha (the author 2015) .......................................................................... 263
Figure 4.18 S. Omura during a class (Omura 2010) .................................... 294
Figure 4.19 Sources of funding for project types ........................................ 320
Figure 4.20 Types of funding utilized by different countries ...................... 321
Figure 4.21 Gordion’s dig house between the tumulus and the village (the
author 2015) ................................................................................................. 340
Figure 4.22 Operational and regulatory issues ............................................ 348
Figure 4.23 Issues impacting conservation practices .................................. 377
xxvi
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“Archaeological sites are made, not found” Frank Matero (2008:3)
Researched, conserved and presented for many years, archaeological sites form
one of the important segments of cultural heritage worldwide. As Matero refers
to above, there is a continuing process that perhaps begins even before the
discovery of an archaeological site, in which it is shaped according to
successive interventions that can be extended to include all aspects of
conservation as it is understood today, driven by a multitude of cultural, social,
economic and political factors. As such, conservation practices form a
significant part of ‘making archaeological sites’ (Matero 2006:55).
This research explores conservation practices as exemplified in foreign-run
archaeological projects in Turkey in order to add to existing knowledge on how
archaeological sites are made. It, for the first time, makes a holistic
examination of conservation practices at foreign-run archaeological
excavations in Turkey. Through a systematic appraisal of the variety of
conservation work over the past few decades, it aims to contribute to a wider
understanding of the dynamics of archaeological heritage conservation in
Turkey and archaeological conservation as it is practiced in Turkey by foreign-
run projects, and thereby lead to more informed conservation policies as well
as enhanced professional collaboration in the future. It is hoped that this
research goes some way towards filling a gap in the research on archaeological
conservation and foreign archaeological presence in Turkey.
2
This introductory chapter begins with a contextual background into foreign
archaeological presence in Turkey. Starting with the Ottoman period it briefly
lays out where foreign teams worked, the motivations behind their
investigations, the impacts of their endeavours on Ottoman and early
Republican perceptions of antiquity, how they institutionalised, finally
outlining the present situation. This sets the scene for the aim and scope of the
research, followed by the methodology applied. The chapter concludes with a
description of the contents of this research.
1.1 Contextual background
The presence of foreign archaeologists in Turkey dates back several centuries.
The Ottoman period saw foreign archaeological presence evolve from
individual involvement towards a more institutionalised existence (Yon
1997:345). The first systematic and extensive archaeological explorations in
the Ottoman Empire began in the 18th century (Madran 2002:87) across its
various territories including Egypt, Greece, Anatolia and Mesopotamia.
Explorers from western countries, supported by museums and other
organisations or individuals, went east in search of antiquities1. Foreign
explorations began to increase particularly from the early 19th century
onwards, with campaigns by the French and British followed by Germany
(Atlıman 2008:49–55; Koçak 2011:34)2. The first French explorations took
place Lycia and Caria, and in Khorsabad and Jerusalem, while British worked
at Xanthos, Nineveh, and Halikarnassos, and the Germans at Troy, Pergamon
and Miletos. The emergence of American explorers in the late 19th century
added another layer to the existing strata of foreign investigations. They
1 Foreign archaeologists worked on behalf of their national museums or other national
organisations, or worked freelance either for themselves or for other private individuals. They
also worked on behalf of the Ottoman Imperial Museum (Koçak 2011:109).
2 For example, in Western Anatolia alone, of the 36 excavations conducted with official
permits from the Empire during 1860-1910, 31 were led by foreigners (Kutlu 2007:20–21).
Çal (1990b:38) states that foreign explorers worked at 55 locations within the territories of the
Empire.
3
similarly excavated in Anatolia and the Near East, with classical period sites
being more their focus in the former, at Assos in the 1880s and Sardis in the
1910s (Gates 1996). Italians followed much later and in 1912 they initiated an
Asia Minor archaeological mission that carried out explorations in southwest
Anatolia until WWI mostly concentrating on inscriptions and building surveys
(Carratelli 1993:29). Some of these foreign explorations turned into long-term
excavations in the late 19th and early 20th century (Dyson 2006:111–112)
particularly those carried out by Germans and Austrians. While excavations
usually entailed small numbers of people, at some sites such as Sardis and
Ephesos explorations turned into large-scale enterprises, which at times could
employ up to 250-300 people (Donkow 2004:114; Çelik 2016:144).
Archaeological explorations and excavations were usually the result of
intricate connections and delicate relationships between explorers and
archaeologists and Western diplomats and military officials who
communicated with Ottoman officials on their behalf. They also reveal close
ties with their national military forces both in terms of contribution of skilled
personnel (architects, engineers, photographers etc.) to excavations (Challis
2008:60) and also for transportation of artefacts.
The main motives behind these endeavours were to consolidate Western
historical narratives and identities (Herring 2011:313) and “create a collective
origin,” through classical antiquities (Erciyas 2005:181) and on Biblical sites
in the Near East (Matthews 2011:36). Although archaeological explorations
acquired more of a scientific emphasis towards the late 19th century3, this
period has largely been characterised as a hasty ‘scramble’ or ‘race’ of
European countries “to amass the largest amount of antique material and best
pieces for their museums” (Bahrani 2011:132) –national museums had
3 Use of archaeological excavation and scientific recording techniques gradually became
important as is evidenced by German criticism directed at J.T. Wood’s conduct at Ephesos
(Challis 2008:134).
4
emerged by that time and were mirrors of “national standing” (Gill 2014:58).
Joining this “battle of the spades” became crucial as having museums filled
with objects acquired from foreign lands turned into a “component of national
cultural self-representation” (Szemethy 2011:344,351).
In this age of “competitive archaeology” (Corbett 2015), this cultural warfare,
which was in fact part of a larger economic and political one between European
nations, also led to the formation of national archaeology schools and institutes
in foreign lands (Elliot 2004) –this competition especially played out in who
was going to excavate which site first, which to some extent continued after
the establishment of the Republic4. In this atmosphere, various factors played
decisive roles in the selection of sites and countries in which to excavate: for
example, national interests, educational structures of countries, which, for
example, could be oriented towards classical studies, and regulations of source
countries concerning export of antiquities (Çelebi 2007:2; Goode 2007:27) –
the latter especially resulting in the preference of Ottoman territories over
Greece5 (Davis 2003:152).
Archaeology at this time was object-driven, initially focusing on ancient
inscriptions, and based on descriptions (Gates 1996), and therefore acquisition
of artefacts constituted archaeological practice (Donkow 2004:114).
Appropriating antiquities also supported territorial claims over Ottoman lands
(Shaw 2003:38), in line with the purposes of ‘informal imperialism’, described
as “the cultural imperialism exerted by the European powers over other parts
of the world” (Díaz-Andreu 2007:14). Important in this process was the use of
4 For examples in the early Republic period see Elliot (2004:285) on Italy wanting to excavate
at Ephesos, previously excavated by the Austrians, and Goode (2007:48–49) for the American
and French rivalry over Arslantepe. For a more recent example concerning the assignment of
sites during the Keban Salvage Project see Dissard (2011:9).
5 The differences of Western conduct in the Ottoman Empire and Greece, albeit with many
exceptions, should also be mentioned. Herring (2011:312), for example, notes this difference
before antiquities laws were put in place in both countries: the former carried out under the
“banner of the quest of knowledge” while that latter was “for the acquisition of antiquities”.
5
these artefacts in establishing “cultural legitimacy,” in the race between
European countries to be the “legitimate heir to the classical world” (Challis
2008:157).
Diverse justifications for acquisition and export of artefacts were voiced, and
could entail “the notion that these were the common property of western
civilization,” (Davis 2003:165–166). This sense of entitlement, coupled with
the concept of saving them for humanity (Goode 2007:33), appears to have had
religious connotations too in that the act of exporting antiquities was
considered by some to be freeing them of their Muslim owners (Barchard
2004:259). These views were not only denigratory to the people, accentuating
“the superiority of the Europeans,” (Herring 2011:313) but also critical of the
restrictive regulations vis-à-vis the movement of antiquities, as exemplified
below (Brown 1905:61):
It so happens that some of the countries, where the soil conceals artistic
treasures of the rarest and most precious kind, are inhabited by a
population at a low level of civilization and culture. Such countries are
Turkey, Egypt, Tunis, Algeria. In these and similar regions somewhat
severe measures are in operation for preserving in the public interest
anything of value that may come to light.
Funding of excavations was heavily influenced by and depended on the
understanding that objects would be retrieved and brought back to furnish
museums (Herring 2011:316–317; Matthews 2011:37). What motivated
foreign sponsors to continue supporting these “primarily business ventures,”
(Goode 2007:38) was this anticipation and belief that regulations could
somehow be evaded6 (Goode 2007:32–33). Therefore, whilst knowledge and
education were some of the reasons behind the interest in ancient sites (Challis
6 See also Goode (2004:63) for differences in conduct between American and European
officials in the early years of the Republic.
6
2008:158; Szemethy 2011:341, 343, 351), excavating solely for the retrieval
of information rather than objects was not favoured7.
Regardless of the primary motives, these excavations resulted in many
volumes of archaeological analysis, recounts of dealings with Ottoman
officials, local people and workmen etc., which not only helped develop
archaeology as a separate discipline and enhanced knowledge on these ancient
remains but also provided invaluable information on the history of
archaeological research (see for example the publications of Fellows, Newton,
Layard, and Humann etc.).
Foreign archaeological conduct and the growing Ottoman concern regarding
antiquities are inter-related. Eldem notes that the “cherry-picking period of
archaeology,” which culminated in the extremely invasive methods applied by
the British at Halikarnassos in 1845, was instrumental in the formation of the
Ottoman Imperial Museum in Istanbul the following year: this in turn led to
the development of Ottoman consciousness and ownership of antiquities8 with
the Empire’s first bylaw in 1869 followed by the bylaws of 1874, 1884 and
19069 (Dr. Edhem Eldem: The Prehistory of Ottoman Archaeology 2015). This
Ottoman cultural appropriation began with the excavation of the Tumulus of
Mt Nemrut after its discovery and exploration by the Germans, which “put the
Ottoman Empire in the position of a producer and promoter of archaeological
research, and the Imperial Museum in that of a legitimate centre for the
preservation and diffusion of archaeological knowledge” (Eldem 2004:130-
131). Archaeological explorations followed in the 1880s at other sites across
7 This accounted for the smaller number of excavations in Italy and Greece in the 19th century
where regulations were more robustly applied Díaz-Andreu (2007:105–109).
8 On this theme see Shaw 2003; Shaw 2007; Eldem 2011.
9 Some of the bylaws and increased restrictions are attributed to specific foreign misconduct,
particularly Schliemann and Wood’s activities at Troy and Ephesos respectively for the 1869
bylaw, and Carl Humann’s activities in Pergamon for the bylaw of 1884 (Donkow 2004;
Challis 2008:158).
7
Ottoman territories including Zincirli, Sidon, Kyme and Lagina Hekate. The
Empire gradually embraced archaeology “as part of a project of modernity”
(Çelik 2011:470) and an “indispensable component of westernisation”
(Özdoğan 2014:2).
While Ottoman regulations on antiquities continued to be mainly shaped by
foreign misconduct, the late 19th century saw western archaeological
explorations acquire a more institutionalised structure in the Empire’s
territories. In this period of European rivalry and growing nationalism (Lévin
2012:55–56), institutional presence of western countries in other countries was
not only a matter of prestige but also considered to be of diplomatic
significance (Díaz-Andreu 2007:103, 107). A number of archaeological
institutes were established on Ottoman soil along with other countries such as
Greece and Egypt. Offices or stations were created mainly in the capital and in
Izmir, close to the most prominent explorations and excavations. In the absence
of such localised offices, and sometimes even after their establishment,
projects could be also directed by institutes elsewhere, such as Athens.
Germany and Austria provide two of the major examples of institutionalisation
at this time. In the latter half of the 19th century, Germany had emerged as the
“new archaeological power,” (Challis 2008:155) by which time the Istituto di
Corrispondenza Archaeologica (Corresponding Society for Archaeology),
established in 1829 in Rome, had become the German Archaeological Institute
(DAI) in 1871 (Díaz-Andreu 2007:102). Large-scale excavations10 carried out
in western Anatolia from the 1870s onwards led to the creation of a German
archaeological station in Izmir in 1884, directed by Carl Humann, which was
moved to Istanbul in 1899 (Hauptmann 1999:34–35).
10 German excavations were carried by the Berlin State Museums and DAI (Bittel 1980:273;
eds. Türe & Filges 1999:6–7).
8
In 1894, the same year that the short-lived Russian Archaeological Institute
was founded in Istanbul11, the Austrian Ministry of Culture and Education
established archaeological stations in Istanbul, Izmir12 and Athens to oversee
Austrian explorations (Szemethy 2011:350). Contrary to British and German
explorations that were enjoying diplomatic and naval support in their
endeavours (Szemethy 2011:339-340, 344), Austrian state-sponsored
archaeology on Ottoman soil began only in the 1870s, but as a relative late-
comer they institutionalised much more quickly. In 1873, Alexander Conze,
working in Vienna, had obtained a permit to excavate at Samothrace, and
investigations were made in the 1880s and 1890s in various sites the southern
regions of Asia Minor, primarily in Lykia and Caria. The excavations at
Ephesos (1896-1906), led by Otto Benndorf and Carl Humann, were the
impetus for institutionalising Austrian archaeological investigations, which by
incorporating existing stations abroad resulted in the formation of the Austrian
Archaeological Institute (OeAI) in Vienna in 1898 with Otto Benndorf as its
first director (Szemethy 2011:354, 361).
During the Ottoman period –and to some extent in the early Republic period –
major issues surrounding foreign archaeological activities centred primarily on
the export of finds and smuggling activities around which legislations were
based. However, the application of bylaws, which were initially a reaction
against foreign misconduct but gradually became more proactive (Koçak
2011:166), could not be fully sustained due to various political and other
factors and power struggles. For example, the rules were loosely interpreted
11 Some of the earliest institutes to be established in the Ottoman period did not survive World
War I: the Russian Archaeological Institute situated within the Embassy in Istanbul (1894-
1914), which focused primarily on Christian and Byzantine monuments and also prehistoric
settlements in Istanbul as well as in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia (Papoulidis 2010; Üre
2014), and the Hungarian Archaeological Institute (1917-18) (Gates 1996). Subsequent plans
to re-open the Russian institute in the 1920s and 1940s did not bear fruit (Papoulidis 2010:191).
12 Istanbul and Izmir units were closed in 1901 and after World War I respectively
(Österreichisches Archälogisches Institut n.d.).
9
by the very people who were supposed to implement them. In addition to
Osman Hamdi Bey’s personal relationships with foreign archaeologists and
institutions (encouraged by the purchase of his paintings or by scientific
recognition) other factors contributed to the liberal enforcement of regulations,
such as the less-than-enamoured Sultan Abdülhamid II, who was keen to use
them as leverage in his relations with foreign leaders, corrupt/lenient officials,
and lack of personnel (Eldem 2004; Goode 2007:24; Rothfield 2009:9; Magee
2012:74; Rutland 2014:49–57; Üre 2014:117). Special exemptions or
agreements also undermined regulations, such as the one prepared for the
Austrian excavators of Ephesos in the 1890s13 (Yegül 2010:72), which allowed
them to export artefacts (Szemethy 2011:355), or the concessions made for the
German team working at Pergamon (Díaz-Andreu 2007:115). These
concessions and agreements as well as permit suspensions should also be read
within the wider framework of international relationships. For example, while
Germans enjoyed greater opportunities than Britain in the late 19th century14
(Rutland 2014:47), tensions between the Ottomans and Germans in the early
20th century impacted their on-going projects (Gill 2004:226; Üre 2014:120).
This loose interpretation of the bylaws ran parallel with purposeful violations
of permit conditions, demonstrated in numerous cases across the Empire –their
perpetrators not only foreign explorers themselves but also diplomatic and
military envoys– and showed that the export of antiquities could not be
stopped15. In spite of this, regulations were imposed with some success as
13 For more than a decade (1895-1908) they enjoyed this exemption, and transferred finds to
Vienna, at a time when other foreign teams were not so generously treated, such as the British
team digging at the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (1904), which were bound by strict rules
concerning the future of finds and other activities (Koçak 2011:151–155).
14 As an example see Rutland (2014) for Garstang’s experiences regarding his permit
application to excavate Hattusha.
15 Activities of archaeologists or diplomatic envoys in Mosul in the 1870s (Bahrani 2011:139–
140) and in Miletus in 1908 (Yegül 2010:74) as well as the French consuls’ conduct in Izmir
and Thessaloniki 1899 (Eldem 2004:136-137) are only fragments of the wider picture.
10
demonstrated in other cases16, owing as much to the regulations themselves as
the personal concerns of Ottoman officials regarding the increasingly
destructive activities17.
World War I and the War of Independence marked the end of the Ottoman
Empire, and while archaeological excavations largely came to a standstill,
some took the opportunity of this chaotic environment to explore occupied
areas or warzones18: there were French and British explorations during the
battle at Gelibolu, directed by persons with archaeological background who
were serving in the army (Chase 1916:201–202; eds. Sagona, et al. 2016),
while Americans worked at Colophon, Izmir (Davis 2003:150) and the Italians
in Antalya (Çelebi 2007). The establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923
saw an almost abrupt halt of illicit archaeological activities and export of
antiquities.
The new Republic fostered research into earlier civilisations in line with the
Turkish History Thesis that sought to make connections between Turks and
ancient Anatolian civilizations, consequently shifting the scholarship in
archaeology towards scientific work on the Hittites and other local populations
(Özdoğan 1998; Goode 2007:21–23; Atakuman 2008; Mac Sweeney 2012:66–
67; Eres & Yalman 2013:35; Eren 2015). This new path culminated in the
establishment of the Hittite Museum in Ankara in 1943, under the supervision
of the German archaeologist H. G. Güterbock19, created with ancient artefacts
16 For example, in the late 19th century, a British excavation in Iraq was suspended when the
archaeologist was caught smuggling artefacts (Magee 2012:74).
17 The severity of pillaging, particularly in the wake of World War I, appears to have greatly
frustrated officials in the southeast as well, with a governor calling for the Ministry of Interior
to stop issuing permits to foreign archaeologists until “experts are trained in our country”
(Çelik 2016:155).
18 The British Museum’s wartime activities using Ottoman prisoners of war to extract ancient
artefacts demonstrate the great lengths to which some institutions could go even in the midst
of a major conflict (Rothfield 2009:8–9).
19 See also (Radt 2010) for similar contributions of German archaeologists to the museum in
Izmir.
11
and building fragments excavated in Anatolia and transported to the capital
(Mellink 2000:787).
Atatürk was interested in “having more foreign expeditions in Turkey” (Goode
2007:47), at times financially supporting foreign research into the archaeology
of Turkey (Saraç 2003:56). Foreign archaeologists studying the Hittite
civilization, particularly immigrant German scholars but also other foreign
archaeologists, embraced this new interest and also contributed to the
nationalist scholarship (Erciyas 2005:183; Ergin 2010:19–20) engaging in
excavations in the capital Ankara20 and beyond.
Turkish-led excavations only began in the 1930s with Alacahöyük under the
direction of Remzi Arık and Hamit Zübeyr Koşay, and at other sites in and
around Ankara (Özdoğan & Eres 2012:471). Together with foreign-led
excavations, these projects marked a significant increase after the sporadic
archaeological activity of the 1920s that were largely carried out by foreign
archaeologists while the Republic sent Turkish students abroad to be trained in
archaeology21 (Özdoğan 1998:118): Austrian activities were concentrated on
Ephesos, which began in 1926/7, as well as the surveys in Cilicia in 1925,
supported by The American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia
Minor, Antioch in Pisidia was excavated by F. W. Kelsey in 1924 for the
University of Michigan, and a Czech team led by B. Hrozny worked at Kültepe
for one season in 1925.
20 One of the foreign work on the Hittites in this period are H. von der Osten’s work in Ankara,
requested by Atatürk (Goode 2007:47).
21 These students were trained in Central Europe, in France, Germany and Hungary (Özdoğan
1998:118; Barchard 2004:266), also demonstrating the closer ties Turkey had with these
countries, as opposed to, for example, Britain and Italy.
12
Despite the emphasis on nationalist theory, research into classical period sites
continued22. In fact the first archaeological permit of the new Republic was
issued to a French team to work at Teos in Izmir23 in 1924 (Özdoğan 2011:32).
Investigations into classical and Byzantine24 sites continued owing to the more
territorial perspective of the early Republican scholarship that collectively
accepted these as part of Turkish identity and also because they could provide
potential evidence supporting the Turkish History Thesis (Erciyas 2005:186–
187; Ergin 2010:25).
The early years of the Republic were also when institutionalisation of foreign
archaeological activities was reactivated. In 1928, DAI’s existing station in
Istanbul became the DAI Istanbul Branch25 with Martin Schede as its first
director a year later (Hauptmann 1999:36). Before then, in the early years of
the Republic, there was a permanent archaeologist stationed at the German
Embassy (Elliot 2004:25). During the first years after the foundation of the
Istanbul Branch until World War II, German teams worked at preclassical sites
such as Hattusha and Demircihöyük, and classical sites such as Temple of
Augustus at Ankara and Pergamon’s Asklepion26 (Hauptmann 1999:37;
Matthews 2011:47).
22 Erciyas (2005:183) notes that this dual interest in classical and Hittite sites in this period
created a gap in scholarship to the detriment of the study of other regions due to their “ethnic
‘insignificance’”, particularly noting the lack of research in the Black Sea region.
23 This permit was only issued after the French returned artefacts they had exported from
Gelibolu and Istanbul during the war (Goode 2007:26).
24 For studies on Byzantine architectural heritage in Istanbul by French, British and researchers
of other countries see Whittemore (1943).
25 The original name of the branch was “Archaeology and History of Turkey” (Archaologie
und Geschichte der Türkei), which was distinct from DAI’s branches in Rome and Athens,
where the focus continues to be on the classical period (Hauptmann 1999:36). Its unit in
Ankara was closed in 1995 (Hauptmann 1999:38).
26 During the course of German work at Pergamon, Turkey acquired its first on-site museum
in 1936, with German financial and technical support (Radt 2010).
13
France followed Germany in setting up an institute. While a French School
existed in Athens in 1846 (Díaz-Andreu 2007:102), plans for a French
archaeological institute in Ottoman territories began in the early 20th century
(Külçür 2010:94). Originally this was intended to centre on Byzantine studies
but with the establishment of the Republic, focus turned to Islamic and Turkish
studies evidenced by the arrivals of researchers on these subjects (Elliot
2004:284). The French Archaeological Institute was established in 1930 in the
French Consulate in Istanbul following the recommendation of the curator of
the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities of the Louvre Museum (İstanbul
Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü 1986) and Albert Gabriel became its
first director. In the 1930s, the French excavated at preclassical sites such as
Arslantepe, Hashöyük, and Midas City (Matthews 2011:45).
Meanwhile, other countries progressed with their work without an institutional
formation. British presence was sporadic and with the exception of several
Byzantine and prehistoric sites, such as the studies of the mosaics of the
Constantinian Great Palace in Istanbul from 1927 to 1932, work at the
Hippodrome, W. Lamb’s excavation at Kusura near Afyon in 1936, and
Garstang’s excavations at Yumuktepe in Mersin in the late 1930s, would
revive only after World War II (Barchard 2004:266; Elliot 2004:286;
Matthews 2011:47). Italian presence was similarly meagre as their permit
applications were blocked until the 1930s, partly related to the Italian
Consulate’s acquisition of ancient artefacts in Antalya (Elliot 2004:285, 288;
Özdoğan 2014:4). One of earliest Italian projects after the establishment of the
Republic took place in 1932 and was limited to an archaeological survey to
study Roman antiquities in Anatolia (excluding the Aegean region) (Çelebi
2007:11). Americans worked primarily on preclassical sites in the 1930s. H.
von der Osten excavated at Alişar in 1926/7-1932 for the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago on behalf of its founder James Breasted (Goode
2007:44; Matthews 2011:47). Other American projects in the 1930s were
further east, such as Tarsus Gözlükule, Antakya/Hatay Tel Tayinat, and in Van
14
but work also progressed at Troy and on Byzantine buildings in Istanbul in the
1940s (DeNovo 1963:272; Koşay et al. 2013b:543).
It should be noted that the quest for antiquities, which dominated much of the
archaeological activities during the Ottoman period, and the perception of
lenient Ottoman officials, appear to have pervaded well into the 1930s for a
minority of foreign archaeologists and institutions operating in Turkey27. Some
archaeologists, most prominently Breasted, and various foreign museums,
such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, maintained the idea that Ottoman
conduct would continue, or in the case of the former, that a new antiquities law
would grant foreign archaeologists some freedom in exercising division of
finds28 (Goode 2007). While regulations stayed the same, the robustness with
which they were applied distinguished this era from its predecessor29. On the
other hand, not quite in the fashion of Ottoman gifting, but in the very early
years of the Republic, some excavated remains were given to foreign
excavators (Goode 2007:44).
The beginning of World War II once again put a temporary halt on foreign
excavations with only a small number of projects continuing, such as DAI’s30
27 For a very early example concerning Sardis, and dating to the first years of the Republic, see
Goode (2007:31–42); Yegül (2010).
28 It should be noted that this subject continued to be a topic of international debate until much
later. The building up to the 1956 UNESCO Recommendations on International Principles
Applicable to Archaeological Excavations is a case in point. Some of the national
recommendations that appear in the UNESCO Preliminary report (UNESCO 1955) reflect
aspects of a “relic driven approach” that insisted on partition of finds, and although “they no
longer had free and unfettered access to archaeological resources”(Egloff & Comer 2012:151),
the section relating to “assignment of finds” still refers to the possibility of allocating
duplicates to the excavator.
29 One of the main reasons for the relocation of the Oriental Institute’s projects to Syria in 1932
was the fact that the laws there were more lenient. As J. Breasted, quoted in Goode (2004:59),
noted: “While it is perfectly true that we are looking for information rather than objects, we
can get both in other countries and therefore have shifted our base for Hittite work into Syria.”
30 Özdoğan (2014:4) notes that, in terms of foreign research Turkey made “a clear distinction
between political and academic concerns” which evidenced itself in the relations with
Germany during the first years of World War II, during which archaeologists employed by the
15
work on Byzantine architecture in Istanbul, and French excavations at
Hashöyük (Çal 1990b:763) followed by Xanthos (1950). Foreign excavations
resumed in 1946 with preclassical excavations: the British working at Tel
Atchana and Yumuktepe and the French at Arslantepe (Çal 1990b:764).
American-run excavations recommenced in 1950 with Gordion, and continued
with Sardis (1958) and Aphrodisias (1961). German projects started in the
1950s with focus on Hattusha, Miletos, and Pergamon. The long-term Italian
excavations began with Hierapolis (1957) followed by Iasos (1960) and
Arslantepe (1961).
The post-war period also witnessed the establishment of the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara (BIAA) in 1948, founded by Garstang31. This marked
the beginning of a more prolific British archaeological presence32 in Turkey as
opposed to the early years of the Republic. Prehistoric and Byzantine periods
were focal research areas in its first decades (Vandeput 2008:9; Greaves
2015:137) and excavations were carried out in the 1950s-60s at Beycesultan,
Can Hasan, Hacılar and Çatalhöyük. Another institute to be established in this
period was the Netherlands Historical-Archaeological Institute (1958),
affiliated to the Netherlands Institute for the Near East (NINO). The Dutch
were late-comers to archaeological research abroad (van den Dries, Slappendel
& van der Linde 2012:140).
The 1960s-70s saw interest in both classical and preclassical sites grow, the
former accelerated with the rise of the tourism industry, and the latter owing
largely to rescue excavations in southeastern Turkey in advance of dam
German government as well as those who had immigrated to Turkey carried out archaeological
investigations.
31 It remains the only foreign (archaeological) institute in the capital other than ARIT’s Ankara
Office. See articles in Greaves (2015) for details on his career and the foundation of the BIAA.
32 The establishment of the BIAA also demonstrated the developing relationship between
Turkey and Britain, and “reflected their geopolitical partnership at the beginning of the Cold
War” (Barchard 2004:267).
16
constructions33 (Matthews 2011:48). The Keban Salvage Project34 (1968-75)
proved to be a ‘turning point’ in archaeological practice in Turkey in this
period: it introduced multi-disciplinarity and new archaeological
methodologies, engaged young archaeologists and introduced the term ‘rescue
archaeology’ to the discipline, while in the ensuing environment excavation
teams of different nationalities and backgrounds came together and learned
from one another35 (Erder 1978:9–16, 20; Dissard 2011:16). Previously
archaeological focus was on classical sites in western Anatolia, the Hittite sites
in central Anatolia and explorations in the Near East, but Keban introduced
archaeologists into this neglected territory36 (Dissard 2011:4). These rescue
projects37 also allowed more foreign archaeologists to work in Turkey as
permits were more readily obtainable (Gates 1996).
Also at this period, two new foreign institutions focusing on archaeology
opened in Istanbul: the Swedish Research Institute (SRII) (1962) and the
American Research Institute in Turkey (ARIT) (1964). Before the former’s
establishment, Swedish archaeologists had excavated at Larissa and Mylasa in
the 1930s and at Labraunda in the 1950s (Green n.d; Carratelli 1993:29; eds.
Türe & Filges 1999:7). ARIT was created after previous efforts in 1910 and
33 An emerging interest was the Urartu culture in the east (Macqueen 1970:145), but
excavations were very limited in number as there was a research ban in certain parts of Turkey,
especially its eastern and southeastern regions.
34 Based on the preliminary survey conducted by the Department of Restoration at METU in
1966-67 (Erder 1967), 12 teams (Turkish, American, German and British) worked at various
sites in the area of impact.
35 Another of Keban’s major significance, besides setting an example for future rescue
operations at Karakaya and Atatürk dams, was that it marked Turkey’s first crowd-funded
heritage rescue campaign (Işık 1973:7; Erder 1978:8).
36 Dissard (2011:4) particularly notes the reluctance and scepticism of foreign archaeologists
to join the Keban mission as southeastern Anatolia was considered uninteresting in comparison
to the well-known southern Iran and Iraq. Özdoğan (2011:38–39, 84), on the other hand, states
that, previous restrictions on the number of archaeological projects in Turkey had decreased
interest in the archaeology of Anatolia, and this played a role in a relatively weak response.
37 For example, following Keban, foreign teams worked at Gritille (Americans), Tille Höyük
(British), Hassek Höyük, Lidar Höyük (Germans), Cafer Höyük (French), during the Lower
Euphrates Rescue Operation in the 1970s-80s.
17
the early 1920s to open an American institute fell short38 (Goode 2004:53; Luke
& Kersel 2013:27–28). Noteworthy American projects were Çayönü, in
collaboration with a Turkish team (Gates 1996), as well as excavations that
started in the previous decade and rescue excavations. The 1980s also
witnessed excavations by two new countries, Belgium and Japan, working at
Pessinus and Kaman-Kalehöyük respectively.
The following decades saw a steady increase in foreign archaeological research
in Turkey39. Between 1981-1987, for example, the number increased from 18
to 27 (Howe 1981; Yardımcı 2006:15). Catalysts for this increase were internal
factors, such as lifting of the restrictions on the number of archaeological
projects40 and external factors, such as conflicts in the Middle East from the
late 1970s onwards, which pushed archaeologists towards southeast Turkey
(Gates 1996; Dissard 2011:4) –making foreign archaeologists “archaeological
refugees of a sort” (Davis 2003:162). The 1990s and 2000s saw a more
pronounced increase in foreign archaeological work, with several projects
initiated, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, and also major new projects
at Çatalhöyük and Sagalassos. Importantly, the Japanese Institute of Anatolian
Archaeology (JIAA), was established in 1998 as the latest foreign institute in
Turkey, as an affiliate of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan
established in 1979 in Tokyo (JIAA n.d.).
38 In fact Turkish authorities had permitted Breasted to open an American archaeological
institute but he had declined (Goode 2004:58).
39 By the early 1960s, the number of Turkish and foreign-run excavations was less than 20
(Özdoğan 2011:34). The number of all archaeological excavations increased significantly from
the mid-1960s onwards, reaching to around 45 projects, of which about 20 were foreign-run
(Çal 1990b:759–794). Much like strict regulations prohibiting export of antiquities caused
foreign teams to withdraw from Turkey in previous decades, difficulties in obtaining permits,
strict control of excavations, and the overall bureaucracy were blamed for a lack of foreign
interest in the archaeology of Anatolia in the later years of the Republic (Özdoğan 2001:41).
40 Özdoğan (2006b:41) refers to a cap applied on the number of excavations that was lifted in
the late 1970s.
18
Today archaeological excavations continue to be directed by foreign
archaeologists affiliated with universities and research institutes41. The main
areas where foreign work is concentrated are Western, Central and
Mediterranean regions, at sites where archaeological work has been on-going
since the Ottoman period or the early years of the Turkish Republic. More
recently, especially in the 1990s, new projects began in the eastern
Mediterranean and south-eastern Turkey. It should be noted that foreign
presence is significantly less in eastern42, southeastern and northern parts
(Black Sea region)43.
Most of the foreign excavations44 are run by German institutions (almost 30%)
at sites located mostly in western and southern provinces, followed by Italy
(21%) and USA (18%), again with excavations mostly in the southern and
western provinces with several located in central and south-eastern regions.
British projects (10%) are mostly in central Anatolia, and projects of other
foreign countries spread across these regions. There is a rough balance between
the number of classical (Hellenistic and Roman) or preclassical (Iron Age,
41 In recent years, the number of foreign-run excavations has risen, although not as much as
the significant increase in Turkish-run projects. The number of archaeological excavations
conducted by a Ministerial decree has risen from 56 Turkish-run and 37 foreign-run excavation
in 2004 to 119 Turkish-run and 43 foreign-run excavations by 2012. The figures have since
dropped to 36 in 2014. Usually about 20% of the total number of archaeological excavations
carried out with a Ministerial decree are foreign-run.
42 Other than the long-term Italian-run project at Arslantepe, one of the rare research
excavations was the one-season excavation at Muş – Kayalıdere, directed by S. Lloyd and C.
A. Burney, in 1965 (Işıklı 2014:4).
43 Until recently, these regions were not excavated to the extent of other regions by Turkish
archaeologists either. Particularly in the case of eastern Anatolia, this low number is primarily
related to an archaeological research ban on this region (from north to south) that was applied
until the 1960s (Ateşoğulları 2002:149). Subsequent interest in the east in the 1960s-70s did
not result in a boost, and there are only five excavations at present, which are concentrated
mostly in Malatya, Van and environs (Işıklı 2014:6–8) –all except the one in Malatya
(Arslantepe) being Turkish-run. Safety and political reasons are cited as reasons for the
confinement of research into these specific locations as well as lack of diversity in research
periods and lack of foreign research (Şerifoğlu & Selvi 2015:126).
44 This brief statistical analysis is based on the 2012 season, which can be accessed here:
http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,44150/kazi-ve-yuzey-arastirmalari-faaliyetleri.html.
The annual excavation figures vary from one year to the next, but this can give a general idea.
19
Bronze Age and earlier) excavations. Among the countries with the largest
number of excavations, German and Italian excavations are predominantly
classical, while American, British and Japanese projects are mainly
preclassical.
Foreign institutes and institutions continue to be a part of archaeological
research in Turkey. Generally, their main aims are to foster suitable
environments for researchers from their countries as well as creating
opportunities for cross-cultural engagement with host nations; as such they
form part a wider network of cultural diplomacy of their native countries
(Braemer 2012:40–42). They usually advise in an administrative capacity
those who wish to make project applications and facilitate their operations in
Turkey and since the early 1990s, upon the request of the Ministry of Culture,
they also review permit applications submitted by their nationals45 (Cross
1997; Shankland 2010:231–232).
The administrative structures of these institutions differ: some are part of their
respective foreign ministries –and are physically located inside their consulates
in Istanbul– while others operate relatively more independently. In the first
group are DAI and IFEA. DAI is a research institute under the Federal Foreign
Office (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 2005). It is publicly funded and has
previously benefitted from the support of the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundations),
Volkswagenstiftung (Volkswagen Foundation) and the Theodor-Wiegand-
Gesellschaft-Gesellschaft der Freunde des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts (Theodor Wiegand Association-Friends of DAI Association)
(Hauptmann 1999:37). IFEA is a research institution operating under the
French Foreign Ministry and the National Scientific Research Center (CNRS)
45 As such, their role in the permit process differs from other countries, such as Greece, where
permit numbers are limited and foreign institutions are heavily involved in the decision-
making process (Davis 2003:164; Finlayson 2005a:4).
20
(IFEA n.d.). It obtains public funding and the French Foreign Ministry, with
its relevant commissions and affairs, decides on projects to be funded (Yon
1997:345). In the second group are the BIAA and ARIT. The BIAA is a
registered charity organisation, and since 1950, along with other British
cultural institutions abroad, it receives its major funding from the British
Academy, which is funded by the UK government as well as through
donations, and has to apply annually for new funding –previously
“endowments and subscriptions” formed the major part of funding for these
institutions abroad (Finlayson 2005a:1–2). For its own projects it also receives
funding from other NGOs and private companies. ARIT, on the other hand,
was founded and financially supported by a group of American and Canadian
universities (Gates 1996). As a non-profit organisation and one of America’s
overseas research centres, it has benefitted from US governmental assistance
in the past, and continues to receive funding from the US Department of State,
Educational and Cultural Affairs, the Department of Education, and the
National Endowment for the Humanities (ARIT n.d; Luke & Kersel 2013:21).
It is also financially supported by private institutions and individuals (through
“Friends of ARIT”). OeAI does not have an office in Turkey46 but is a research
institute based in Vienna within the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OEAW)
with two foreign branches in Athens and Cairo (Österreichisches
Archälogisches Institut n.d.). Its main funding comes from the Academy. Their
directors have traditionally led the excavations at Ephesos.
There are countries whose nationals direct excavations in Turkey without an
umbrella organisation, such as Belgium, Italy, and Canada to name but three.
Although Italian archaeological presence is considerably older than the others
in this category, and despite ideas of establishing an institute in 1925 to focus
on classical, Byzantine and Ottoman periods (Elliot 2004:282), Italian
archaeological research in Turkey has continued without a specific
46 A plan to re-open the Izmir branch in the 1980s did not materialise (Bammer 2010:54).
21
organisation. The Italian Cultural Attaché acts as a liaison (Shankland
2010:232), and since 2010, the Italian Culture Institute in Istanbul has become
an environment of archaeological interaction through its annual event on the
Italian contribution to archaeological research in Turkey, at which usually the
Italian ambassador and an MoCT representative give opening speeches. The
initial research interest focused on the southwest and on classical sites diffused
geographically and period-wise towards eastern and southeastern parts of
Turkey to include preclassical sites.
The focal points of research in all these institutions tend to vary. DAI’s
research spans from preclassical periods until the end of the Ottoman Empire
(Koenigs 1997), but although later periods continue to be less of a focus
(Pirson 2015:40) there is a wish to extend these interests to embrace a more
“cross-cultural and comparative” approach (Pirson 2009b:90). Similarly, the
main research interests of the OeAI in Turkey, as evidenced by their two major
projects, Ephesos and Limyra, are sites with primarily classical remains. JIAA,
on the other hand, focuses solely on archaeological research of preclassical
periods through its excavations at Kaman-Kalehöyük, Büklükale and
Yassıhöyük. ARIT, on the other hand, has traditionally supported research into
ancient periods and the Ottoman period as well as contemporary Turkey (Cross
1997:92; Luke & Kersel 2013:33).
The BIAA and IFEA present other cases. In the former, the early focus on
prehistory and the Byzantine periods expanded later to include not only other
periods47, including modern Turkey, but also a geographical expansion towards
the Black Sea, and more recently to other subject areas, such as cultural
heritage management, public archaeology, climate change, and migration
(Vandeput & Köse 2012:33) in line with their ‘strategic research initiatives’.
47 Research interests reflected those of its directors and presidents, such as prehistory during
Garstang’s presidency in the 1940s-50s, and Roman and Byzantine during Michael Gough’s
directorship in the 1960s, though prehistory remains a particular focus (Barchard 2004:267,
269).
22
This new path was opened in 2004 with the contraction of the institute’s name
to the “British Institute at Ankara”, departing from its main focus on
archaeology to reflect its growing diversity in research48 (Vandeput 2008:8).
So although archaeology continues to be its “core strength” (Vandeput 2011),
it is incorporating regional cross-cultural research (Finlayson 2005a:4–5) and
is transitioning into a “multidisciplinary research institution” (Lewis 2016).
For the French, on the other hand, research periods include modern times, as
is reflected in the change of the institute’s name in 1975 to the French Institute
for Anatolian Studies (IFEA) since when it has engaged researchers from
different fields to reflect the study of all periods of Turkey49 (İstanbul Fransız
Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü 1986). French archaeological research
concentrated mostly on excavations at classical sites and mounds. Contrary to
other foreign institutes that began life focusing on archaeological research and
have recently expanded their focus to incorporate the study of other fields and
time periods, the French Institute, which had already decided on that route 40
years ago, now wishes to make archaeology a more prominent research area in
Turkey (IFEA n.d.). Their recent project in Labraunda is testimony to this
direction.
Differences exist, therefore, in the diversity of disciplines and topics supported,
geographic remit, and also in the type of archaeological projects (short or long-
term). DAI’s projects, for example, traditionally consist of long-term
engagement with sites in the form of excavations, and to some extent short-
term survey projects (Hauptmann 1999:38; Pirson 2009b:91, 2015:41).
Austrian and Italian projects show a similar approach. Central to the BIAA’s
work, on the other hand, are short-term projects, particularly regional surveys,
48 The Netherlands Historical-Archaeological Institute similarly rid itself of these words and
since 2005 is the Netherlands Institute in Turkey.
49 Since its establishment, researchers’ main interests varied including prehistory, classical
archaeology, Ottoman and modern history of Turkey as well as studies on Istanbul through its
Urban Observation Centre (IFEA n.d; İstanbul Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü 1986).
23
such as the Balboura Survey (see Coulton 2012), which do not necessarily lead
to excavations but are “stand-alone, self-contained projects,” (Vandeput
2008:9) –long-term projects do not form a majority50.
It should be noted that over the past decade these institutes have been in a
process of transformation, most noticeably in their gradual move towards
heritage studies (Luke & Kersel 2013:42) and considerations on cultural
heritage management and heritage conservation. As mentioned above, these
are especially discernible at the BIAA, and to some extent at DAI and ARIT.
In the former, there are projects on heritage management, public involvement
and perceptions51, while at DAI, heritage conservation has become a new focal
point (Pirson 2015:40). These are also demonstrated in their newsletters,
websites and articles (see DAI n.d.b; Vandeput & Köse 2012; Reinhart 2016).
Research on foreign archaeological presence in Turkey is intertwined with a
variety of subject areas including, but not limited to, the emergence and
development of archaeological consciousness, perception of antiquities in the
Ottoman Empire and political entanglements (Shaw 2003; Çelik 2011; Eldem
2011; Çelik 2016), the use of archaeology in nation-building processes and the
development of archaeology in Turkey (Özdoğan 2006b; Atakuman 2008; Mac
Sweeney 2012; Koşay et al. 2013a). In most of this literature, foreign presence
forms the backdrop against which the main lines of enquiries are examined.
50 The preference for long and short-term projects lies mainly in specific archaeological
traditions and financial support. In one tradition, which is “historical and particularist,” the
focus on single sites for the purpose of understanding the history of a particular geographical
area, while the other has a “a more generalizing, anthropological tradition,” in which
excavations and surveys are conducted to answer specific research questions (Bernbeck &
Pollock 2008:338–339) –the former reflects most of the central European archaeological
projects in Turkey, while the latter reflects the BIAA’s approach. Long-term projects also
require committed financial support. For example, Greaves (2015:137–138) cites lack of
financial support as one of the reasons for the limited British presence in classical archaeology,
which would be necessary to carry out long-term excavations (the other reason he notes is the
preference of British classical archaeologists to work in Greece).
51 This gradual move towards a cultural heritage approach is also reflected in the change of the
title of their journal “Anatolian Archaeology” to “Heritage Turkey” in 2011.
24
Particularly due to research centring on nationalism and nation-building, they
primarily focus on the Ottoman and early Republic periods, resulting in a
visible lack in studies that cover more recent periods, particularly the period
following World War II.
Other publications on foreign archaeological presence study archaeological
explorations in Ottoman territories, such as those that concentrate on British
archaeological explorations (Cook 1998; Challis 2008) and other countries
(Szemethy 2011). They reveal conditions in which archaeological work was
carried out in relation to the economic and political contexts of their own
countries as well as rivalries between foreign nationals, institutions, and states.
They also tackle relations with Ottoman authorities in terms of the
implementation of regulations particularly pertaining to partition/division of
find in studies on specific foreign individuals (explorers, diplomats etc.) and
explorations at certain sites (Esin 1993; Donkow 2004; Elliot 2004; Yegül
2010; Malley 2011). The subject attracts researchers in various disciplines,
including history and politics as is evidenced in the graduate theses prepared
(Kutlu 2007; Atlıman 2008; Külçür 2010; Üre 2014). The changing conditions
brought about by the establishment of the Republic are the subject of a number
of publications (Goode 2004; Goode 2007) that also display the continuing
diplomatic machinations involved in archaeological processes.
Most of the literature mentioned above contains information about the
formation of foreign schools and archaeological institutes (Davis 2003; Gill
2004), while several other publications on the BIAA, DAI, IFEA and foreign
institutes in general (İstanbul Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü 1986;
ed. Matthews 1998; eds. Türe & Filges 1999; Vandeput 2008; Pirson 2009b;
Braemer 2012) bring this information more up-to-date within changing
financial and regulatory conditions. The role of foreign research institutes in
nation-building processes and the impacts of foreign archaeological presence
on archaeological practices are less-examined subject areas and only briefly
mentioned in several publications (Davis 2003; Erciyas 2005). The latter
25
subject has been discussed in a variety of presentations during the Changing
Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1st TAG-Turkey Meeting in 201352.
In most of these publications, the primary line of enquiry is the history of
foreign archaeological presence and there is a neglect in the study of recent
practices. Exceptions are a small number of publications that investigate
foreign archaeological projects within the wider region, in terms of their
impacts on archaeological practices as a whole and relations with locals.
Noteworthy examples in this context are “The Political Economy of
Archaeological Practice and the Production of Heritage in the Middle East” by
Bernbeck&Pollock (2008), and “Archaeological fieldwork in the Middle East:
academic agendas, labour politics and neo-colonialism” by Starzmann (2012).
These are valuable studies in terms of differentiating between various
archaeological traditions and their practical impacts, as well as examining
attitudes towards local authorities, archaeologists, and communities,
particularly in relation to the pervading imperialism in archaeological
practices. However, they are predominantly framed within a regional (Middle
East) context, and it can be seen that, compared with neighbouring countries,
Turkey usually displays a distinct case in terms of its regulations and the way
archaeology is practiced, and therefore some of the general assessments made
are not necessarily representative. Another significant publication is
“European Archaeology Abroad: Global Settings, Comparative Perspectives”
by eds. van der Linde, et al. 2012), which has valuable chapters on
archaeological practices of a number of countries, including Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.
Literature focusing specifically on foreign presence and contributions as a
whole to the field of archaeology and heritage conservation in Turkey is
limited. The research is usually based on individual countries, as is the case
52 See articles in eds. Çilingiroğlu & N. Pınar Özgüner (2015) for discussions on Germany’s
impact on archaeological practices in Turkey.
26
with several publications that centre on the Italian archaeological and
conservation practices in Turkey (ed. Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti 1993; ed.
Tangianu 2005; ed. Başgelen 2013) but these are mostly in the form of detailed
preliminary reports of the previous seasons. Publications on specific foreign
institutes, referred to above, also provide some information. Mehmet Özdoğan,
M., 2014, ‘To Contemplate the Changing Role of Foreign Academicians in
Turkish Archaeology. A Simple Narrative from Scientific Concerns to
Political Scuffles’, Anatolian Metal VI (der Anschnitt 25) 2014, 1–6” is one of
the rare examples, as well as Nezih Başgelen’s "Türkiye'de Yabancı Bilim
Heyetlerinin Kazıları - 1980'li Yılların Çalışmalarına Genel Bir Bakış" (2006),
which very briefly discusses archaeological work carried out by the teams of
five major foreign countries in the 1980s, and a short part of Stubbs and
Makaš’s (2011) chapter on architectural conservation practices in Turkey,
where they briefly refer to foreign-run archaeological excavations and
conservation work.
This contextual background demonstrates the significant place of foreign-run
projects in the study of archaeological sites in Turkey. However, while there is
a considerable amount of literature on the abovementioned subjects, the place
of foreign archaeological excavations in archaeological heritage conservation
in Turkey, in relation to global changes and those that are reflected in the
Turkish scene, remains under-researched. Other than the preliminary reports
published in the Excavation Results Meetings proceedings, and several recent
articles (Bachmann 2014b; Seeher & Schachner 2014; Ladstaetter 2016),
mainly authored by excavation directors to demonstrate previous and on-going
conservation work at their individual sites, there is no holistic research that
examines conservation work at foreign-run archaeological excavations, in the
way, for example, some recent articles have been aspiring to do in terms of
foreign archaeological practices in the Middle East (Bernbeck etc. mentioned
above).
27
1.2 Aim and scope
The existence of foreign archaeological research is a crucial part of
archaeology and conservation in Turkey. As described above, the first
explorations and excavations caused major transformations in the way the
Ottoman Empire perceived ancient remains and approached their protection.
In succeeding years, the technical and scientific knowledge of foreign teams
helped to research and evaluate numerous archaeological sites in Turkey and
facilitate their enhanced conservation. Foreign teams and experts53 have
participated in the formulation of conservation approaches, and have
contributed to recording and conservation. Their projects have enabled the
implementation of a variety of architectural conservation interventions,
especially where anastylosis, consolidation etc. works were carried out, and
subsequently more multi-dimensional site conservation and presentation
efforts. For this reason, it is important to make a comprehensive analysis of
conservation practices at archaeological sites excavated by foreign teams.
This research aims to investigate conservation practices at foreign-run
archaeological excavations54 (operating through a Ministerial decree) to
identify the scale and nature of their differing contributions, determine
changing approaches, issues impacting conservation, as well as possible
catalysts, influences and driving forces. It should be noted that making
53 Note for example, M.F. Miltner’s (of the OeAI) membership of Turkey’s first Monuments
Preservation Council created in 1933 (Madran 1996:73) or the participation of foreign
excavation directors and conservation experts in the first national symposium on conservation
and valorisation of archaeological sites held in 1991 (ed. Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma
Genel Müdürlüğü 1992).
54 ‘Foreign-run archaeological excavation’ (yabancı kazı), the officially recognized
terminology as per law, denote archaeological excavations carried out by teams led by
archaeologists affiliated with foreign (i.e. non-Turkish) institutions. The teams can in fact be
international and are not limited to people of one specific nationality. In that respect, when
using the term ‘foreign’ the emphasis is on the academic affiliation of the excavation director
who receives the official permit to excavate, rather than his/her nationality.
28
comparisons between conservation practices at foreign-run and Turkish-run
excavations is not an objective of this research.
The thematic scope, ‘conservation of archaeological sites’ and related
practices, is viewed holistically, including technical, socio-political and
economic dimensions in a way that reflects developing trends in heritage
conservation in recent years. A brief overview of the development of
archaeological conservation is given here to explain the position this research
takes in its understanding of conservation of archaeological sites55.
Cultural heritage conservation has evolved considerably in the last century.
The rapidly changing world, brought about by “...globalisation, technological
advancement, political conflict, population mobility, spread of participatory
democracies and market economies”, defines the way cultural heritage is
interpreted and conserved (Avrami, Mason & de la Torre 2000:3). In this
respect, the scopes of heritage and conservation have undergone significant
changes, reflected in and catalysed by “the cosmos of international theory and
practice of conservation / preservation” (Petzet 2009:13)56.
The object of conservation efforts, i.e. what to conserve, has evolved from its
initial architectural focus to encompass material contexts (sites and landscapes)
and the intangible heritage of communities in the shape of their traditions and
perceptions (collectively forming ‘cultural heritage’) –changes encapsulated in
the Venice Charter57 (1964), UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972),
55 This research does not judge earlier conservation work according to the present
understanding of what conservation of archaeological sites involves.
56 International documents concerning specifically archaeological sites, such as the UNESCO
Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations,
ICAHM Charter and the revised European Convention focus on aspects such as the definition
of heritage, identification and survey, reconstructions, excavation processes, presentation,
maintenance, financing of research, dissemination of information, raising public awareness,
international technical and scientific collaboration, professional qualifications.
57 As a fundamental text impacting architectural conservation practices, the Venice Charter
condones a scientific approach to conservation. It recognizes restoration as a “highly
specialized operation” the aim of which is to preserve aesthetic and historic values with
29
ICAHM Charter (1990), the revised European Convention on the Protection of
the Archaeological Heritage (1992), the European Landscape Convention
(2000), the Faro Convention (2005) and the Ename Charter (2008). Values
associated with cultural heritage no longer focus on works of great artistic
significance but, since the Venice Charter (1964), embrace the notion that
buildings and sites can have values other than artistic or purely scientific
(Stanley-Price 1996). Today, the role of cultural heritage in the society is more
associated with its contribution to social and economic development
(ICOMOS Paris Declaration 2011). Multi-disciplinarity in the field of
conservation has evolved from its initial focus on the “close collaboration
between the archaeologist and the architect” (Athens Conference 1931),
towards collaboration with experts of relevant fields, further developed with
the Venice Charter, the ICAHM Charter (1990) and the revised European
Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe
(1992).
Parallel to this more inclusive perspective, the field of conservation shed its
Euro-centric focus to involve values and perceptions of the ‘periphery’ (Logan
2004:2), introducing revised understandings of the concept of authenticity and
the principle of minimum intervention (a core principle of conservation) with
the Nara Document of Authenticity58 (1994) and the Burra Charter (1999),
“respect for original material and authentic documents” (Article 9). It puts forward
maintenance as a key element of conservation (Article 4) and supports the use of contemporary
materials and techniques, postulating that any additions should be distinct (Article 9, 10, 12,
15). Departing from its predecessors, anatylosis, defined as “the reassembling of existing but
dismembered parts”, is stipulated as the only acceptable intervention in archaeological
excavations, with a total disregard for reconstructions (Article 15). Subsequent
implementations of anastylosis, however, demonstrate the ambiguity of the term, and as
Vacharopolou notes “the concept lingers between restoration and reconstruction” (2006a:199).
Another contribution of the charter is its emphasis on recording and publishing each phase of
conservation work (Article 16).
58 Subsequently hailed as “a watershed moment in modern conservation history” (Stovel
2008:9), the Nara Document represents a paradigm shift in the history of conservation (Poulios
2016:162). The document moved the existing focus on the tangible (the prevalent material-
based approach) towards the intangible, and from the universal to the local by recognizing how
culturally diverse heritage and perception of heritage were. At a time “in which people and
30
thereby broadening our understanding of heritage towards the intangible, and
its conservation towards culturally appropriate methodologies.
The growing recognition of culturally diverse values and perception of cultural
heritage as a resource (Şahin Güçhan 2014:XIX), required conservation efforts
to take a more holistic form in such a way that it would allow the expectations
and views of multiple stakeholders to be taken into consideration, thus leading
the way to a values-based heritage management approach59 (Sullivan &
Mackay 2012:4). Public participation has therefore become an integral part of
heritage conservation. In this way, the field of conservation is also moving
from its expert-led focus towards greater involvement of communities in the
identification, conservation and management of cultural heritage –a trend that
is expanding with the ‘living heritage approach’ in which the continuous
relationship of local communities with archaeological sites are further
recognized (Poulios 2010).
The field of archaeological conservation is inextricably linked with cultural
heritage conservation. While principles such as minimum intervention,
reversibility, and issues such as maintenance, presentation and the “appropriate
degree of intervention in the conservation process” (Sullivan & Mackay
2012:2) (consolidation, anastylosis, and reconstructions etc.) continue to be
discussed at great length (Vacharopoulou 2006b; Orbaşlı 2016:186), the field
has evolved parallel to these developments. Today conservation of
archaeological sites is not only about physical interventions to prevent or
communities, and what heritage means to them, became gradually more significant” (Holtorf
& Kono 2016:139), the document called for a context-based dynamic view of conservation
(Jokilehto 1998:18) that acknowledged human activities, local values and “workmanship and
other aspects of cultural continuity” (Araoz 2013:144).
59 The Burra Charter in particular set in motion a new direction for heritage conservation in
the form of a values-based approach, which not only set forward a move from intrinsic values,
primarily historic and aesthetic (de la Torre 2013:157) to a wider, more inclusive range of
values but also spearheaded participatory conservation processes –an approach that has
become particularly widespread in the US, Australia and the UK (Poulios 2014:19).
31
remedy threats to building remains, but is a multi-faceted, multi-voiced, social,
economic and political process in which many issues need to be considered.
For the purposes of this research, therefore, the following topics are examined
within the broader understanding of conservation of archaeological sites:
• Technical aspects
o identification and survey (documentation, information
management tools etc.)
o architectural interventions (backfilling/reburial,
consolidation–stabilisation, anastylosis, restoration,
reconstruction, relocation, replication)
o planning and management
o monitoring and maintenance
o site presentation
o conservation professionals and teams
• Socio-political aspects
o engagement with the local communities and
dissemination of information
o relations with the authorities
• Economic aspects
o funding of conservation work
o use of financial resources
In line with this understanding of archaeological conservation, this research
examines conservation practices at foreign-run archaeological excavations
according to the following questions:
• What types of conservation interventions were carried out?
• Who did the conservation work?
• What were the financial sources for conservation?
• Were local communities engaged and if so how?
32
• Have conservation approaches changed over the years and if so in what
way?
• Which issues impacted the conservation process?
• What are the possible catalysts, influences and driving forces?
The following topics were addressed to set the scene:
• the legal and administrative contexts in which foreign teams carry out
these interventions
• the requirements of working in Turkey and the expectations of the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism60 in terms of archaeological
conservation
The temporal scope of this research relates to the recent past: more specifically,
it concentrates on conservation practices at foreign-run excavations between
1979-2014 (35 seasons). The main reason for this sample is the availability of
a major source of information in the form of the proceedings of the Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı (Excavation Results Meeting) (ERM)61 –an event that has
become an institution in its own right, through which archaeological activities
in Turkey have been presented annually without fail since 1979. The
advantages and disadvantages of using ERM proceedings are examined in
detail in the methodology section.
1.3 Methodology
The subject of this research, conservation practices at foreign-run
archaeological excavations, was investigated at the selected sites that were
60 For the remainder of this research it will be referred to as ‘MoCT’. In situations relating to
pre-2003, when the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Tourism were merged, ‘MoC’ will be
used to refer to the Ministry of Culture.
61 For the remainder of this research, this event is referred to as ‘ERM’ and its proceedings as
‘ERM proceedings’.
33
considered to present a representative sample among a larger number of
ongoing projects. Conservation practices were investigated using two main
source categories: publications, within which the ERM proceedings (1979-
2014 seasons) formed the structural foundation, and interviews. These were
supplemented by personal observations during site visits.
1.3.1 Selection of sites
In the early stages of this research, approximately 40 foreign-run excavations
were continuing in Turkey62 (Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2), run by 12 different
countries63: German-run projects, almost 30% of the total number of foreign-
run archaeological excavations, were mostly in western and southern regions;
Italian (19%) and American-run (14%) projects were similarly concentrated in
the western and southern regions with several located in central and south-
eastern regions; British-run projects were mainly in central Anatolia. Projects
of other foreign countries were spread across the country.
Figure 1.1 Foreign-run projects by country
62 The late 2000s and early 2010s have seen changes in institutions running projects, finalized
projects, and permit cancellations, therefore, these figures are only given to provide a general
idea.
63 Projects carried out by academics affiliated with institutions in Australia and Sweden have
since ceased or were transfered to another institution. Projects carried out by British
institutions have decreased since.
5%2% 2% 2%
5%
28%
19%
7%
2% 2%
12%14%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
34
Fig
ure
1
.2
Fore
ign-r
un
arch
aeo
log
ical
ex
cav
atio
ns
in
the
earl
y
20
10
s (t
he
auth
or
usi
ng
M
oC
T
list
s g
iven
at
ww
w.k
ult
ur.
gov.t
r)
35
Among the four countries with the largest number of excavations, most of the
German and Italian-run projects were on predominantly classical sites, while
with American-run projects classical and preclassical sites were almost equal
in number. British-run projects are were primarily on preclassical sites with
the exception of one post-classical site.
The main areas where foreign work is concentrated are the Aegean,
Mediterranean and Central Anatolian regions. Eastern, southeastern and
northern parts of the country remain under-researched by foreign teams. The
oldest-running excavations, i.e. the ones that began during the Ottoman Period
or in the early years of the Turkish Republic, are mostly concentrated in the
Aegean and Central Anatolia region, while the distinct focus of the last decades
of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century rests with the eastern
part of the Mediterranean region, southeastern and Central Anatolia.
In view of this large number of projects, the intention has been to select a
representative sample of those excavations in terms of the country operating
the project and project duration (older and newer projects). Longevity was an
important selection criterion so that developments in conservation practices
could be better understood. Short-term excavations, i.e. those that lasted only
a few seasons, and excavations that had started only recently were therefore
not included. Excavations also needed to be on-going because the directors and
where possible conservation specialists were to be interviewed on site. Main
building materials, stone and mudbrick, were taken into consideration due to
their different conservation problems.
Based on these criteria, sites were reduced from around 40 sites to the eventual
19. In the first stage, a preliminary list was narrowed down to 31 sites, and
their ERM proceedings and associated literature studied to help make a general
assessment of the works carried out and the information available. After this
stage, excavation directors were contacted –their response and availability
36
formed one of the determining factors in finalising the list of 23 sites64,
following which site visits and interviews were carried out. After a final
assessment based on available data and their relevance to this research, 19 sites
were selected for detailed investigation.
Eight foreign countries are represented among the 19 selected sites reflecting
the existing predominance of German-run projects (Austria, Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, USA) (Table 1.1, Figure 1.3) Geographically, they
are spread in almost all the regions where foreign institutions carry out
excavations (the only exception being the Black Sea region) (Figure 1.4).
Eleven excavations began either during the Ottoman period or in the early
decades of the Republic and eight began in the 1990s or later. All these
excavations were researched retrospectively through the ERM proceedings,
other publications, and interviews to understand conservation practices over a
period of almost four decades.
Figure 1.3 Affiliated countries
64 At this stage, the permits of several projects in this group of sites were cancelled, therefore,
their directors were not contacted. Among those who responded positively some had to be
excluded mainly owing to schedule conflicts.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Austria Belgium France Germany Italy Japan UK USA
37
Figure 1.4 Regional distribution of the selected sites
Table 1.1 Selected case study sites
Site Country Starting date Region
1 Aphrodisias USA 1960s Aegean
2 Arslantepe ITA 1930s
1960s Eastern
3 Çatalhöyük UK 1960s Central
1990s
4 Doliche GE 2000s Southeastern
5 Elaiussa Sebaste ITA 1990s Mediterranean
6 Ephesos AU
19th cent
1920s
1950s
Aegean
7 Gordion USA 1900s
1950s Central
8 Göbeklitepe GE 1990s Southeastern
9 Hattusha GE 1900s
1930s Central
10 Hierapolis ITA 1950s Aegean
11 Kaman-Kalehöyük JP 1980s Central
12 Kyme ITA 1970s Aegean
1980s
13 Labraunda FR
1940s
1980s Aegean
2000s
0
2
4
6
8
10
Aegean Mediterranean Central Southeastern
38
14 Pergamon GE 19th cent
1950s Aegean
15 Priene GE
19th cent
1970s
1990s
Aegean
16 Sagalassos BE 1990s Mediterranean
17 Sardis USA 1910s
1950s Aegean
18 Troy GE 19th cent
1930s Marmara
19 Yumuktepe ITA 1990s Mediterranean
1.3.2 Sources and constraints
1.3.2.1 ERM proceedings and other literary sources
The ERM proceedings lie at the heart of this research. The annual event brings
together directors of archaeological excavations and surveys with
representatives of MoCT65. A permanent fixture in the calendar since 1979, the
ERM is one of the longest-running archaeological meetings in the world66. It
has produced, as of 201667, 79 volumes of publications that represent the
diversity of archaeological research in Turkey as well as providing an
environment for periodic review and information sharing. As such the ERM
65 Previously, collective information regarding archaeological projects could be found in
various journals as annual reports on archaeology in Turkey written by Halet Çambel, Bahadır
Alkım, Handan Alkım, and Machteld Mellink (Özdoğan & Başgelen Nezih 2013:xiv). This
tradition was continued in the 1990s and early 2000s by Marie-Henriette Gates and Alan
Greaves. ERM grew into a multi-disciplinary symposium with the addition of the Survey
Results Meetings in 1983 and Archeometry Results Meetings in 1985. The first proceedings
to be published were for the second ERM held in 1980.
66 Various other countries that hold annual symposia are Cyprus, Belize and Guatemala (Luke
& Kersel 2013:61).
67 These proceedings are of the 2014 season of excavations.
39
Fig
ure
1.5
Fore
ign-r
un a
rch
aeo
log
ical
ex
cav
atio
ns
inv
esti
gat
ed i
n t
his
res
earc
h
40
may be regarded as a significant factor in the development of archaeological
practice in Turkey68 (Özdoğan & Başgelen Nezih 2013:XV).
As Özgüner (2015:275) notes, ERM proceedings are not peer-reviewed, and
therefore are not purely scientific texts, which allows the event and
proceedings to “go a step beyond descriptive texts that document fieldwork
only, and serve as a forum for the governed (e.g., project directors, specialists,
archaeology students) to voice concerns to governors (e.g., members of the
Ministry and, more importantly, of the General Directorate)”. This feature of
the proceedings has been particularly useful in following changing policies of
MoC/MoCT and subsequent reactions, depicting contemporaneous debates,
and problems related with conservation work. One might add to this, MoCT’s
position with regards to archaeological fieldwork and conservation practices,
as represented in the opening and closing speeches of MoCT officials and of
excavation directors on behalf of the academic community. It is unfortunate
that those speeches have rarely been printed in the ERM proceedings
(exceptions are 5th, 23rd and the 24th ERMs), therefore, attendance at the ERMs
of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015 as part of this research proved to be of
significant value in ascertaining MoCTs recent position and policies.
The ERM proceedings provide considerable information on conservation
practices, allowing tracing of interventions year by year and following
progresses or certain problematic issues. Having said that, there are various
constraints associated with using ERM proceedings as sources for
conservation practices.
68 Criticisms regarding the event mainly centre on its chronological programme, which is
considered a discouraging factor for attendance throughout the week, and that the event itself
does not function as a platform of debate and resolution of problems (Pasinli 2002:IV; Koparal
2015:102).
41
MoCT, and its predecessor the MoC, did not require project directors to submit
their articles according to specific criteria69 –even their appearance in the
proceedings is determined on a ‘first-come-first-appear’ basis. As a result, the
level of information is highly diverse –particularly visible in the early years of
the ERMs where some reports are very elaborate while others barely touch on
the season’s work70 . The structure and level of detail of these reports are
entirely up to the director, who may not submit a report on a particular year71.
Sometimes owing to a change of director, or change in focus, report structures
of certain sites might also differ, or they may not refer to a continuing project
in certain seasons, making it difficult to follow the progress of a project.
Information is limited to what the excavation director wishes to share on that
particular occasion, therefore an omission does not necessarily mean that a
particular project or set of work never took place. This does, however,
demonstrate that the authority does not engage in systematic information
collection for the purpose of ERMs.
Similarly, MoCT, until recently, did not stress on a particular language in the
submitted reports, and therefore, it remained the choice of each director to
decide, resulting in a multi-language volume of proceedings. Other than the
obvious Turkish articles about Turkish-run projects, foreign directors mainly
chose to write in their own language, or another common language while some
others presented bilingually in Turkish and another language72. In some cases,
69 For example, information on funding, team members, their specialisations etc. varies
significantly, and in some reports, there is no reference to these subjects.
70 An example is from the proceedings of the 1983 season (published in 1984). Reports of
Ephesos and Hattusha, demonstrate how each director decided on the level of information. The
report of Ephesos is one page long, with another page of photos, while the results of Hattusha
are delivered in 29 pages accompanied by 14 pages of photos and architectural drawings.
71 It may also be the case that instead of submitting a report each year, a collective report
representing work over a number of seasons is submitted –though this usually does not exceed
two seasons.
72 As is discussed later in this research, there is a shift towards Turkish in the ERM
presentations and published reports.
42
directors of the same country presented their results in different languages such
as with the Italian-run Iasos and Hierapolis, the results of which are presented
in French, and Arslantepe, written in English.
The use of different languages in the ERM reports brings forth two issues when
used as a source for this research: terminological errors in translated texts and
differences in conservation terminology. In reports that were translated from a
foreign language into Turkish, there are instances of erroneous terminology,
for example, phrases such as koruma restoresi or koruyucu restoresi –as seen
in the ERM report for Kyme’s 1990 season which are incorrect forms of
explaining (architectural) conservation in Turkish. While these may largely
stem from a lack of familiarity with conservation terminology on the
translator’s part, they may indicate the unfamiliarity of the original author,
particularly where it relates to newer terminology such as ‘management
planning’ that can get confused with landscape design projects. A more deep-
rooted problem concerns the inconsistency in the use of specific terms such as
anastylosis, restoration and reconstruction, which can be used interchangeably,
such as referring to a project as an anastylosis in one year’s report and then
refer to it as a reconstruction the following year.
At this point, it should be noted that conservation terminology varies from one
country to the other. For example, Vacharapoulou (2006a:200–201) describes
the differences of vocabulary between professionals of different countries,
such as Greece, England and Austria, where for the Greeks anastylosis implies
interventions wider than ‘re-assembling’ but for the Austrians it is strictly
based on the Venice Charter, where new material is kept at a minimum and
only introduced as a result of structural or holistic reasons. This is in fact part
of a wider problem with which the international community has been dealing
since the early 20th century, if not earlier. Translation of conservation
terminology is particularly crucial in the preparation of international
43
guidelines, which are then translated into other national languages73. For
example the “Manual on the technique of archaeological excavations”
published in 1940, in reference to problems associated with international
collaboration, states that “terminology in matters of art and archaeology also
poses a problem of co-ordination,” and heralds a multi-language terminology
dictionary (International Museums Office 1940:189).
In the early years of the ERM, not every archaeological excavation’s report
appeared in the proceedings, and even later, there are cases when reports of
certain sites are not in the proceedings, such as Arslantepe in the late 1990s
and Çatalhöyük in the 2000s74. On occasions where ERM reports do not
mention conservation work, this does not necessarily mean no conservation
work was carried out that specific season.
Another constraint is that in some cases, ERM reports do not refer to some
aspects of conservation work, such as management planning or community-
related projects even though related projects were carried out. Similarly,
information on funding, and more specifically that for conservation projects
can be limited. Nevertheless, the ERM proceedings provided valuable
information for this research.
73 See Willems (2007) for an example on how the use of different terms in different languages
can even influence the interpretation of international principles, such as in the French and
English versions of the Valletta Convention (regarding the terms preventive archaeology and
rescue archaeology). Similarly, Erder (1994:25–26) notes the different interpretations of the
Venice Charter, the original of which was French, when translated into other languages. See
also Kaymak Heinz (2008:463) for differences between the Turkish and German translations
of the Venice Charter, which reinforces the argument that countries adapt and interpret such
texts according to their own contexts and conditions. The Nara Document’s English and
French versions were similarly ‘dissimilar’, with slight nuances owing to the particulars of
each language (Cameron & Inaba 2015:35).
74 Although previously directors could decide whether or not to submit their reports to the
proceedings, MoCT has been increasingly attributing greater significance on attendance to the
ERMs, and in fact more recently, MoCT representatives speaking at the ERMs emphasized
that presentations should be made by the directors themselves and not a team member, which
suggests submission of reports are also important.
44
Other literary sources used to consolidate and elaborate information or fill in
the gaps include printed publications such as articles, journals, books, theses;
digital media including websites of excavations, online documents, reports;
and news items.
1.3.2.2 Interviews
One of the important aspects of this research was to ascertain the views of
current excavation directors regarding their conservation practices, problems
they encountered and the circumstances within which they worked in order to
be able to understand more recent conditions surrounding conservation work –
information that may not have been readily available elsewhere. Semi-guided
interviews were preferred to a questionnaire75, or to a structured formal
interview in order to encourage a discursive dialogue and thus avoid answering
one question after another in a linear procession.
In view of the large number of sites selected, a decision was made at the
beginning of the process to carry out interviews based on the site’s
geographical locations (Fig. 1.2). Interviews were mainly conducted during
three separate trips across the country in 2011, 2012, and 2015. Another
strategic decision was to hold interviews with the directors at the sites they
were working at. This strategy was adopted as it would enable the author,
where possible, to visit the site with relevant professionals and observe the
issues raised.
The directors were initially contacted through emails in which the research
topic was explained, and a request was made to have a preliminary meeting at
75 The initial intention had been to send questionnaires to the directors asking specific
questions about the context and content of their conservation work, however, preliminary
studies resulted in a large number of questions, which raised doubts as to whether this would
be a viable research methodology: it was considered highly unlikely that the directors would
respond to a long questionnaire over an email. It was also considered restrictive if they wished
to expand on various topics or preferred to highlight a certain matter. Therefore, holding
interviews with the directors was chosen as the appropriate method.
45
the ERM of that year in May. These short, introductory meetings were
followed by further correspondence about the date and time of the discussions
at their sites, scheduled for later that summer. This was done by sending the
directors who had responded to the initial query the route of site visits, planned
by the author, which allowed for the most part of one day for each site followed
by travel to the next site on the route. Upon confirmation from the directors, a
final programme was sent out.
The first group consisted of seven directors of sites that were along the Aegean
coastline and further inland. The interviews took place at the relevant sites,
with the exception of one that occurred at the director’s institute. The second
group consisted of five directors of sites along the Mediterranean as well as
sites in eastern and southeastern Turkey. The discussions took place at the
relevant sites. The third group consisted of five sites in central and eastern
Anatolia. All except one interview took place at the relevant sites. Also in this
final stage, interviews with two directors who were originally in the first two
groups, with whom it had not been possible to meet previously, were carried
out at an ERM76. It must be noted, however, that all the sites selected for this
research were visited regardless of whether the interview was conducted at the
site or not.
Interviews were mainly held either at excavations houses or on site. Where
possible, and if existing and present, meetings with team members responsible
for conservation of the site / buildings also took place. On various occasions,
it was also possible to meet with the Turkish assistant-director but that was not
the norm. In all visits to meet the directors, the author was formally introduced
to the kazı temsilcisi (representative) by the directors.
76 With the exception of Sagalassos, where the head of conservation was interviewed on behalf
of the director, the directors were interviewed at all the other sites.
46
Questions centred on themes to understand the most-recent conditions for
archaeological conservation at the sites where they were working:
• practical conservation work / conservation activities
• conservation problems
• conservation teams
• funding of conservation work
• relations with locals and community engagement
• relations with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT)
They were not posed at once at the beginning nor were they asked always in
the same order. Depending on the course the discussion was taking, the author
tried to create an environment where it was possible for the directors to
elaborate and articulate each topic the way they felt comfortable. The directors
were very generous with their time, allowing an hour at the least for
discussions –usually a lot longer– and arranged site visits, led either by
themselves or by a team member. Some of those interviewed wished to remain
anonymous while other gave their consent for themselves to be directly
associated with their comments.
Sources for portraying the views of MoCT relating to conservation work at
foreign-run archaeological excavations and on foreign projects come from a
variety of sources. ERM proceedings, where in the earlier years various
speeches made by MoCT representatives were published, provided an
important background. Also, the ERMs that were attended during the
preparation of this research yielded information, again owing to the opening
and closing speeches. This information was supplemented with an interview
conducted with the Excavation Unit of MoCT in 2016 (referred to in the text
as MoCT comm. 2016). Literature on the development of archaeological
practice in Turkey as well as newspaper articles, particularly interviews given
to the press by MoCT (ministers or representatives) also contributed to
47
understanding their position and views with regards for foreign-run
archaeological excavations.
1.3.2.3 Data collection and storage
The data collection process began with the preparation of a list in the
preliminary stages of the research that covered conservation practices
according to international guidelines (given in p.18). Based on this list, five
main data categories were formed according to which sources were studied –
this process also guided the interview phase of the research:
• practical conservation work / conservation activities
• people in conservation
• funding for conservation
• community engagement
• issues impacting conservation practices
Considering the amount of data collected through the literature survey, ERM
proceedings, interviews and site visits, data storage was an important part of
this research. All literary sources were stored in the reference managing
software CITAVI, which allowed collation of information according to the
designated information categories as well as retrieve notes, highlighted texts
and quotations according to these categories.
The ERM proceedings necessitated the use of Excel files. Each volume was
examined to determine how conservation approaches at selected foreign
archaeological excavations evolved and what role conservation has played in
their excavation programmes/schedules. The information was initially stored
in separate Excel files created for each year, which was converted into separate
sheets for each excavation where conservation practices were noted according
to the data categories mentioned above. Together with information derived
from other sources, this was then converted into a chart where activities at each
site for each year were marked.
48
Interview data was stored and analysed using the software QSR NVivo,
through which collected information was coded for each research question to
allow for viewing of the types of responses across the respondents. This was
particularly useful in understanding and structuring current issues impacting
conservation practices.
Site visits, carried out on the day of the discussions, focused on recent
conservation projects of the teams, and the problems they encountered.
Examples discussed during the interview were photographically documented
during the visits. In addition, attention was paid to document how the site was
presented to the public, concentrating on site entrances, facilities, visitor
routes, information made available to visitors, whether the site was sign-posted
in its vicinity etc.
1.4 Contents
The research is structured in five chapters. The first chapter sets the scene by
providing a contextual background on foreign archaeological research in
Turkey, followed by the aim and scope, as well as the methodology of the
research. The second chapter examines legislative conditions in Turkey with
regards to archaeological conservation and foreign archaeological excavations,
and outlines official requirements concerning foreign-run archaeological
projects, focusing especially on conservation. The third chapter explores
conservation practices at the selected 19 sites over a period of 35 years (1979-
2014) to present the types of conservation work carried out, the people who
carried out the work, funding sources for conservation, and community
engagement in archaeological and conservation processes. The fourth chapter
presents a review of conservation practices in three sections. Based on the
information in the previous chapter, initially a thematic evaluation is carried
out so as to identify different techniques and changing approaches during the
examined period. Then, using the information obtained from the interviews as
a starting point issues impacting conservation practices are explored. At the
end of the chapter, the possible catalysts, influences and driving forces behind
49
conservation practices are discussed. The final chapter gives an overview,
concluding with recommendations and suggestions for further research.
50
51
CHAPTER 2
REGULATORY CONTEXT REGARDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSERVATION AND FOREIGN-RUN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EXCAVATIONS IN TURKEY
This chapter explores legislative conditions in Turkey with regards to
archaeological conservation and foreign archaeological excavations. Since the
foundations were laid in the late Ottoman period, the country has had an
established legislative system. At present, the cultural heritage conservation is
defined by the Law no. 2863 and its auxiliary documents, which include
regulations (yönetmelik), directives (yönerge), and circulars (genelge). The
chapter initially examines the historic development of the legislations and goes
on to examine requirements concerning foreign-run archaeological projects.
2.1 Regulatory framework
The regulatory framework is examined in six periods, which denote significant
changes in the conservation practice and/or conditions regarding foreign-run
archaeological projects in Turkey:
• Ottoman period
• Early Republic period (1923-1973)
• Introduction of contemporary conservation concepts and more defined
frameworks for archaeological practice (1973-1983)
• Maturity and localisation in conservation (1983-2004)
• Impacts of the EU harmonization process (2004-2009)
• Emphasis on conservation and presentation, and pervading nationalism
with regards to foreign-run projects (2009-present)
52
2.1.1 The Ottoman period
The territories of the Ottoman Empire were the setting for numerous remains
of past civilisations and explored by foreign travellers from as early as the 16th
century (Madran 2002:87). Interest in classical knowledge and the desire to
possess ancient remains emerged, which in the 19th century reached its peak,
with numerous excavations carried out within the Empire (Shoup 2008:85; eds.
Bahrani, Çelik & Eldem 2011). These mostly involved removal of objects and
building remains to western museums –a cause of increasing dissatisfaction
publicly voiced (Akın 1993:233). The Ottoman response was to legislate
against the plundering of ancient remains (Madran 2002:19). The ancient
monuments bylaws (Asar-ı Atika Nizamnameleri), issued over a period of five
decades, from 1869 to 1906, recognised ‘antiquities’ (eski eserler) as having
historic importance and asserted state ownership of hitherto undiscovered
finds. These bylaws, together with the opening of the Imperial Museum and its
influential director Osman Hamdi Bey, were pivotal in the institutionalisation
and establishment of principles for the protection of archaeological heritage in
the Ottoman Empire.
The 19th century witnessed a major transformation in the Ottoman perception
of antiquities “from blissful indifference to anguished concern” (Eldem 2011).
The growing interest of foreign explorers and the increasing number of
excavations interspersed with the promulgation of four major bylaws on
archaeological and conservation practice defined the era. The bylaws were
continuously renewed owing to foreign exploitation, a process aptly described
by Shaw as a “dialectic negotiation between the writing of the law and a series
of subsequent infringements” (Shaw 2003:108).
53
The first legislation77 (Asar-ı Atika Nizamnamesi) regarding archaeological
heritage in the Ottoman Empire was issued in 1869 (Mumcu 1969:66; Çal
1997:391) and marked the beginning of “a modern approach to the
management of antiquities and archaeological sites in the empire” (Eldem
2011:22). The justification of the bylaw appears in its prologue and states that
the previous practice of regulating archaeological research78, which involved
dividing excavated finds between the excavator and the State when identical
items were discovered, had proved to the detriment of the State museum
(Mumcu 1969:68). As such, the bylaw79 made permit applications compulsory
for archaeological investigations, which would allow the permit holder to
investigate only below-ground, making any work on or damage to above-
ground artefacts a punishable offense –the latter in particular is the first such
rule on protection of immoveable heritage (Madran 2002:21). Ownership of
discovered artefacts rested with the landowner. Significantly, the bylaw
prohibited the export of antiquities unearthed during excavations, allowing,
however, the sale of these items within the empire, and making exceptions for
coins and in the case of an official request by a foreign state to obtain an
artefact. The bylaw was a significant first step towards regulation of
77 Çal (2003:259) considers this text to be more like an archaeological excavation regulation
in modern terminology rather than a bylaw on antiquities as its primary aim was to regulate
archaeological excavations.
78 A written text defining the rules of earlier practice is absent but Eldem (2011:315–316)
refers to the correspondence between the Grand Vizier and the governor of Izmir in 1863 in
relation to John Turtle Wood’s investigations at Ephesos, which outline the practice at the
time. As such, identical artefacts were to be shared between the State and the excavator, any
in-situ antiquities of symbolic importance were not to be removed, and consent of landowners
was to be sought when excavating on private property.
79 Madran (2002:22) gives an example of the impact this bylaw had on archaeological
investigations, and cites the rules stated by the State to a French-led investigation intended for
Miletus, Priene and Herakleia. They refer to seeking consent of the landowner prior to
excavations, conducting surveys for one year before beginning excavations and prohibiting
damages to buildings and monuments as well as the export of finds, and mention that an
attendant shall be present throughout the entire process. In effect, these rules go beyond those
put in place by the 1869 bylaw.
54
archaeological and conservation practices, but lacked strength in the protection
of immoveable remains.
Following growing criticism regarding foreign conduct during archaeological
investigations and the inadequacy of the existing bylaw in preventing such
incidents led to a second antiquities bylaw, enacted in 1874. Issued in Ottoman
and French, this was substantially more detailed than its predecessor, which
had a mere seven articles, and essentially concerned foreigners (Shaw
2003:89). In 36 articles, it articulated archaeological practice by defining
‘antiquities’ (coins and other moveable and immoveable objects), permit
conditions (covering a maximum of two years’ investigations with the
requirement to submit a map of the planned excavation area and the payment
of a fee80), export conditions, division of finds, and landowner rights. The
explorers were required to cover all costs associated with their excavation and
the expenses of any appointed governmental representatives. They were also
liable for any damages during the excavation. In a major shift from the 1869
bylaw, however, it legalised a three-part division of finds between the State,
landowner and excavator –one of the most abused articles of the bylaw– and
allowed export of moveable artefacts. This significant change is mainly
attributed to the imposing ways of European states (Çal 1997:392). On the
other hand, the statement that immoveable assets on privately owned land and
of ‘perfection’ were State property, even if the definitions were dubious and
limited, can be considered as a precursor of State ownership of archaeological
assets. While establishing standards for excavations, the bylaw also further
developed a protectionist mode towards ancient buildings in that it forbade
demolishing ancient buildings on public and private lands, and prohibited
excavations at several types of Islamic buildings, such as tekkes, medreses and
tombs.
80 Previously, the bylaw on Publications and Excavations in 1872 had made it compulsory to
pay a fee to get a permit (Madran 2002:188–189).
55
The third antiquities bylaw, enacted in 1884, made significant changes in that
it not only extended the scope of antiquities –to include all moveable and
immoveable vestiges of earlier cultures situated aboveground, underground, in
seas and lakes, including those not yet discovered, in the lands that now formed
the Ottoman Empire– but also introduced rules to protect these antiquities81.
The definition offered further information on what it considered to be
antiquities naming types of buildings, such as fortifications, temples, theatres,
palaces etc82. Importantly, the scope of antiquities reflects the historical value
attributed to them (Shaw 2003:111). In a significant move, the bylaw
recognized all antiquities as State property83. In terms of protection of
antiquities, it prohibited damage to antiquities, old buildings, roads, towers,
hamams, and tombs, as well as opening lime kilns nearby, reuse of old building
stones, and using these ruins as homes, storage, barns etc. Landowner rights
were restricted in that demolishing existing or buried antiquities in their lands
was forbidden. In terms of archaeological excavations, the bylaw, in a
landmark decision, completely abandoned earlier rules on the division of
finds84 and banned export of antiquities85. Excavators were only allowed to
make pictures or take moulds of antiquities. A more detailed permit process
was defined that required, as in the 1874 bylaw, excavators to submit their
81 The provisions of this bylaw were in fact observed in action before its enactment (Eldem
2004:132).
82 This definition involved primarily pre-Ottoman remains.
83 By accepting the remains of people who lived on these lands before themselves as its own
property, the Ottoman Empire further strenghtened its ties to its territory and rebuffed
European claims to those ancient remains (Shaw 2003:112). Recognition of all remains of
former cultures continues to be one of the important aspects of the present legislation.
84 Multiple incidents abusing the previous bylaw that occurred across the empire precipitated
this fundamental change. For example, reaction against Carl Humann’s conduct at Pergamon,
who bought the land where he excavated to increase his shares, appears to have played a role
in shelving the rule of division of finds (Shaw 2003:108–110; Çelik 2016:117).
85 Foreign reactions to this bylaw were particularly critical and many expressed their dismay
at being unable to export any artefacts and having to carry out excavations, in Osman Hamdi
Bey’s words, “for the embellishment of [the Imperial] museum” without any profit to their
own museums (Çelik 2016:46).
56
permit applications to the Ministry of Education (MoE) along with a map
showing the proposed excavation area. Permits were granted after the consent
of the Imperial Museum followed by the MoE’s approval, and a final seal from
the Sublime Port. Excavators were obliged to pay a deposit during their
applications, which could be reimbursed following the successful completion
of the excavation86 (Çal 2003:262). Permits could be issued to persons or
scientific institutions. While the previous bylaw put local authorities in charge
of excavators to ensure they complied with the rules, and in some cases a civil
servant, the 1884 bylaw made the presence of a governmental representative
to oversee the excavation compulsory practice, and whose expenses were to be
paid by the excavator.
The final Ottoman antiquities bylaw was promulgated in 1906. Essentially
preserving the substance of its predecessor, this bylaw clarified certain hazy
areas that had caused problems, such as the definition of antiquities (Çal
1997:393), and standardized archaeological and conservation practice. It
largely remained in use until the 1970s. The definition of antiquities, which
ends with a list87 of moveable and immoveable asset types considered to be
antiquities was further expanded to include Turkish-Islamic remains of
scientific and artistic importance. Reference to ‘existing and hitherto
undiscovered’ artefacts reflected the open-ended and inclusive approach
adopted previously. Significantly, State ownership was extended to include
antiquities on private land. Similarly, the right to excavate any land (private or
public) belonged to the State, but it could permit specialists and scientific
institutions to carry out archaeological excavations. The Imperial Museum
assumed the primary administrative role with regards to the research (through
86 Brown (1905:223) refers to a ‘rent’ paid to obtain a permit “the proceeds of which go for
the benefit of the Museum”.
87 As Madran (2002: 44) notes, listing building types that are recognized as antiquities is an
approach observed in the subsequent laws of 1973 and 1983. Shaw (2003:128) suggests that –
following Çal’s (1997:393) supposition along the same lines– by listing antiquities, Osman
Hamdi Bey’s intention may have been to educate people as to what constituted antiquities.
57
excavations), conservation and preservation of antiquities. The permit process
was essentially the same as before except for a reference to an antiquities
commission that was to make the necessary investigations on the viability of a
permit request. The bylaw contained a specific section on immoveable
antiquities which, similar to the rules set by its predecessor, listed the various
types of uses that are banned and expanded on the penalties in case of any
violation. In an additional move to protect antiquities, the bylaw made it
obligatory to notify officials when buildings and ancient remains were
encountered during construction work and to guard the said vestiges until the
arrival of an official.
Conservation of cultural heritage in Turkey had its origins in these fundamental
texts that primarily aimed to regulate foreign archaeological investigations.
Their strong archaeological emphasis is evident, although with each new bylaw
the aim and scope evolved, both to claim ownership of and to preserve the
Empire’s antiquities. The expanding definition of antiquities, which included
all remnants of former cultures as well as contemporary creations by
recognizing the values of Islamic buildings and remains, and the development
of standardization of archaeological research and preservation, are the
founding blocks on which the existing legislation in Turkey was built from the
early years of the new Republic. The pace at which these bylaws were put into
force, within a period of several decades, indicates the significance that the
Ottomans began to attach to archaeology88 (Eldem 2011). Having said that,
archaeology and conservation remained primarily part of an elitist agenda set
by officials and intellectuals, and never quite became a widespread public
concern (Kayın 2008). Archaeology’s service as leverage between European
states and the Empire meant that the bylaws were always negotiable, and were
88 In fact, from 1848 until 1917, 42 new legal and administrative regulations of varying
contents, directly or indirectly related with antiquities and conservation were put into effect
(Özgönül 2014).
58
therefore continuously violated to accommodate changing circumstances and
for political expedience89.
2.1.2 Early Republic period
Archaeological practice acquired a whole new meaning for the State during the
formative years of the Turkish Republic. Based on the Turkish History Thesis,
archaeology became one of the driving forces of nation-building and identity
formation (Tanyeri-Erdemir 2006; Goode 2007; Atakuman 2008; Erimtan
2008). This new agenda and endeavour to link the former cultures of Anatolia
with the Turkish nation had a significant impact on the sites and time periods
selected for research, with particular focus on the pre-classical periods90.
This surge of interest in archaeology, however, did not particularly reflect itself
in the legislation pertaining to ancient monuments and their preservation91, and
Turkey continued to employ the 1906 bylaw with only minor additional
regulatory documents. Noteworthy at this time92, however, was the formation,
within the MoE93, of both the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums (Asar-ı
Atika ve Müzeler Müdürlüğü) in 1922, whose duties included identification
89 The Ottoman State’s conflicting attitudes towards protection of ancient remains, coupled
with lack of definition and educated personnel, created viable conditions for explorers to
purposefully disobey the stipulations of their permits (Madran 2002; Shaw 2003; Çelebi 2007;
Challis 2008; Yegül 2010).
90 Although classical sites also continued to be investigated, interest in them would revive
primarily in the 1950s (Hodos 2015:89).
91 One lost opportunity appears to be the law proposal on the maintenance and preservation of
historic monuments in 1933. The justifications of this law contain concepts and ideas quite
novel for its time (Madran 2002:125). They refer to the preservation of records and memories
of former civilizations, development of tourism, training conservation specialists, involvement
of local authorities in these activities to enable monuments to be visited. The law was not put
into effect.
92 The early years of the Republic also saw efforts to create a national inventory. A circular
sent to the provinces asked officials to identify and record (photograph, map) antiquities within
their boundaries, including Islamic and pre-Islamic periods (Madran 1996:63).
93 The Ministry of Education’s name was changed to the Ministry of Culture in 1935 and
remained so until 1941, when it once again became the Ministry of Education (Redford 2007).
It was the primary organisation responsible for archaeological and conservation practices until
the reformation of the Ministry of Culture in 1971.
59
and preservation of antiquities, and the Monuments Preservation Commission94
(Anıtları Koruma Komisyonu) in 1933, which had a wide-ranging programme95
including documentation, restoration and publications96 (Madran 2002:96,
109).
One of the small number of legislative documents impacting archaeology and
conservation in the period is a circular released in 1936 that reiterates certain
fundamental issues (Madran 2002:120) reflecting the Republic’s
contemporary views on archaeological practice. According to this circular,
archaeological research and excavations were to be conducted by those with
scientific qualifications, demonstrating the Republic perception of
archaeological endeavours as scientific activities. Those who wished to engage
in archaeological investigations were to bear the financial responsibility for the
entire process and demonstrate this by providing documents to that effect. The
archaeologist had the right to publish his/her results; however, all discovered
artefacts and remains were State property. These rules were effectively a
reinforcement of the last Ottoman bylaw.
Although specific regulations regarding archaeological practices were not
forthcoming, archaeology’s significant role in nation-building processes
resulted in a growing State interest in the field. Two examples can be
mentioned in this context. The first related to the use of archaeology in this
process through public education, which was considered to be the “most
effective measure for the preservation of historic artefacts and antiquities”, by
activities such as conferences, visits to ancient sites and museums, and
94 Among the first members of this commission were two foreign nationals, an archaeologist
from OeAI and a photographer from the University of Chicago (Madran 2002:169).
95 Madran (1996:70) states that this commission was the first large-scale preservation
programme of the new Republic. In 1933 alone, the Commission inventoried 3500 monuments
(Madran 1997:89).
96 The “Turkish History, Archaeology and Ethnography Journal” (Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve
Etnograyfa Dergisi) is one such publication that ran from 1993 until 1997, albeit sporadically.
60
publications on archaeology (Madran 1996:74). A national education
programme prepared in mid-1930s stated that all former cultures, regardless of
what they are called, are part of Turkish history, and their preservation is a duty
(Madran 1996:74). Despite its nationalist motives, the symbiotic relationship
between public education and conservation in fact closely corresponded to
contemporary recommendations on archaeological practice, such as those
promulgated in the Cairo Act of 1937.
The second example in this context concerns Turkey’s international standing
as regards archaeology. Turkey participated at The League of Nations’
international conference in Cairo in 1937, which resulted in various
recommendations on archaeological excavations and international
collaboration, and culminated in the aforementioned Final Act of the Cairo
Conference97 (Stanley-Price 2003:270–271). Turkey was represented at this
event by Remzi O. Arık and Hamid Z. Koşay (International Museums Office
1940:227). The document’s primary aim was to build uniformity in national
policies to guide archaeological practices –as such it had a significant impact
on the 1956 UNESCO Recommendations on International Principles
Applicable to Archaeological Excavations. The Final Act was distributed to
the League of Nations, and Turkey was among the 13 states that responded to
the call, informing that it had “prepared a draft law on antiquities based on the
principles of the Act” (UNESCO 1955:7). Although Turkey did not produce a
new law until 1973, Turkey’s representation and international collaboration
are noteworthy.
97 The Cairo Act recognized state ownership of archaeological sites, and called for state
regulation of archaeological excavations, increased international collaboration, creation of
‘protected areas’, prevention of illicit excavations and trade, and set out guidelines for sharing
and acquisition of finds. It also recommended equal treatment of foreigners in terms of
excavation permits (i.e. the same as the nationals of each country) and that countries should
afford guarantees that their work would not be cancelled prematurely. Though it lacked some
aspects, Turkey’s existing regulations largely conformed to these recommendations, having
been set in motion from the 1860s onwards.
61
Archaeology’s importance during this period is made all the more evident in a
direct reference in a law to publications made by foreign archaeologists –there
are no other articles relating to other scientific disciplines or indeed foreign
research carried out in any other discipline. The Basma Yazı ve Resimleri
Derleme Kanunu98, that came into effect in 1934, had one article stipulating
that foreign archaeologists were required to submit six copies99 of publications
they made abroad related to their excavations in Turkey, and to provide written
assurance in their permit applications to ensure that they would comply with
this rule. This further demonstrates the perceived value of archaeological
research and its integration into the national education system.
In essence, however, the legislation regulating archaeological practice did not
display a dramatic change under the early Republic, and the same can be said
for the concept of preservation of archaeological heritage. During the Ottoman
period, preservation had primarily focused on objects, their relocation to the
Imperial Museum (and later to other museums that were established) and
various bans on damaging moveable and immoveable antiquities100. This
approach largely continued post-1923 and sculptures and reliefs were sent
mainly to the Ankara Museum, which consequently acquired an impressive
collection of artefacts sent from across the country101. In-situ conservation as a
concept did not exist, due both to the dangers of leaving attractive pieces on
98 This law aimed to create a national legal depository, emulating western countries, of
publications made in the country (Gökman 1955). It remains in force.
99 These copies were to be sent to the National Library (two copies), Ankara Public Library
(one copy), the library of the MoE’s Museums Division (one copy), the library of the
Antiquities Museum in Istanbul (one copy), and the Turkish History Institution (one copy).
100 At this stage, the impact of the 1912 bylaw on the protection of monuments (Muhafaza-ı
abidat) on the destruction of historic buildings and sites must be noted. Although firmly
interconnected with the 1906 bylaw through two articles reiterating the definition antiquities
and reminding that any damages will be penalized, the bylaw enabled and in fact precipitated
destruction at a vast scale (Madran 1996:63). The bylaw remained in force until 1936. For
details see Mumcu (1969:75).
101 See Gür (2007); Shaw (2007); Vandeput (2008) for further detail on this period of the
museum.
62
site as well as the absence at this time of any public interest (Özdoğan & Eres
2012:471).
The general approach to archaeology and heritage conservation during the first
decades of the Republic can be said to have been driven by several major
factors. In a phase of adjustment and institutionalisation, archaeology’s
importance in building a nation-state led to increased numbers of
archaeological excavations and educational activities while emerging
urbanisation called for measures to control its impacts on archaeological and
historical remains. Lack of finances to carry out the intended programmes and
a general lack of public will, however, prevented widespread conservation of
cultural heritage (Akçura 1972:41).
The early 1950s marks the beginning of a new phase in the field of heritage
conservation in Turkey. The most notable development was the formation of
the autonomous Supreme Council for Immoveable Antiquities and
Monuments102 in 1951 within the MoE. Previously, what constituted
‘antiquities’ was not particularly obvious, and this lack of clarity had led to
serious loss of some archaeological and historic remains (Çal 1990a:366). The
council had principle-making (on conservation and appropriate interventions),
monitoring (of implementation) and advisory duties with an initial focus on
‘architecturally and historically significant’ buildings (Mumcu 1972:56). This
was later expanded to include decision-making status in planning processes
regarding ancient monuments and sites (Akçura 1972:41; Özgönül 2014). As
such, the council is considered a milestone for heritage conservation in Turkey
as it marks the first attempt at site-scale conservation103.
102 The Supreme Council remained in force until 1983 when the Law no: 2863 was put into
effect.
103 In spite of this enhanced approach, other legislative documents created conflicting
conditions, such as those on new developments (İmar Tüzüğü), which required a ‘green zone’
between ancient monuments and their vicinity that resulted in the loss of tangible and
intangible interaction of those monuments with their environments (Akçura 1972:41).
63
These various developments aside, the legislative system concerning
archaeological practice and heritage conservation remained largely the same
from the late 19th century to 1973, by which time the complexity of conditions
impacting ancient monuments and sites, primarily owing to urbanisation and
the emerging tourism sector, had reached an alarming level. Lack of legislation
that supported a site-based approach to conservation meant that many of the
Supreme Council’s decisions were disputed, and it was in these circumstances
that the first legislation after the 1906 Antiquities Law, the Antiquities Law
no:1710,104 was enacted in 1973.
2.1.3 1973-1983
The new law was a major overhaul in that it introduced contemporary
conservation concepts and moved the field towards a holistic conservation
approach. It also resulted in the first regulatory document (issued the same
year) on soundings and excavations on archaeological sites (Eski Eserler
Sondaj ve Kazı Yönetmeliği). The law defined ‘antiquities’ and divided these
into certain types: ‘monument’105, ‘complex/group of buildings’ (külliye), and
most significantly, and for the first time, ‘conservation areas’ (sit), which were
grouped into three (historical, archaeological, and natural), thereby obviating
former ambiguities regarding the permissible scale of conservation (Kamacı
2014:5–6). Its site-scale conservation approach reflected recent developments
in Europe, particularly prominent in the Venice Charter in 1964, which the
Supreme Council had formally adopted as a set of guiding principles, relatively
quickly in 1967 (Ahunbay 2010:109–110).
104 Madran (2002:85) states that this law, along with its predecessors, had a distinct
archaeological bent, owing primarily to the archaeological focus of the Ottoman bylaws and
the authors of the 1710 law, who were mostly archaeologists or those with museum experience.
105 The definition is all-encompassing without reference to any time periods or civilizations.
As with previous Ottoman laws, it provided a list of building types to clarify what is in fact
meant by the term.
64
One of the remarkable contributions of Law no:1710 was its integration of
conservation into the planning system by making it compulsory to consult the
MoE ahead of new development in areas where antiquities are located. It also
opened the door to revisions of previous plans for conservation purposes. This
marked the beginnings of integrated conservation planning in Turkey, and
indeed preceded the 1975 Amsterdam Declaration that called for integrated
conservation. Another new concept was the ‘reserve areas’ that denoted areas
to be preserved for future research106.
Importantly, the new law enabled the Supreme Council to designate
conservation areas, including archaeological conservation areas (Şahin
Güçhan & Kurul 2009:29), which were defined as “places of ancient
settlements or where remnants of old civilizations are located, including those
underwater (known or yet to be discovered)”. The listing of immoveable
cultural assets, on the other hand, was carried out by a group of specialists
within the MoE, including tourism specialists. This is an early indication of the
way cultural heritage was perceived as a tourism asset by the authorities107.
In terms of archaeological practice, the new law defined the conditions and
processes for excavations under a dedicated section –not dissimilar to the
Ottoman bylaws in terms of its content and wording. The Regulation on
Soundings and Excavations (1973) described in detail the permit requirements
as well as the duties and rights of directors. One of the main differences
compared to 1906 law is that permits were granted only to persons108 who are
106 The concept mirrors international doctrinal documents such as ‘witness areas’ referred to
in the 1956 UNESCO Recommendations, ‘reserve zones’ stated in the 1969 European
Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, and more recently ‘reserve
areas’ in the 1999 Malta Convention.
107 Akçura (1972) notes that the tourism boost in the 1950s had led to a legislation bill that
aimed to correlate tourism with cultural heritage but that it did not come to fruition, so
reference here to tourism specialists in the Law no. 1710 may in fact have originated from
earlier similar considerations.
108 An article states that members and staff of embassies and consulates operating in Turkey
cannot obtain permission to do research, excavation or soundings. This is noteworthy
65
affiliated with scientific institutions with appropriate academic and financial
support, both of which had to be verified in writing. Persons must be known in
their subjects and have relevant field experience and publications. Permits also
hinged on publications produced during and subsequent to the soundings and
excavations. All directors were required to submit a report to the MoE within
three months of the end of each season and their final reports within five years
of project completion. Failure to comply would result in permits not being
renewed.
The Regulation introduced a different permit application procedure109 for
foreign archaeologists. The MoE was the designated authority on all research
and permits, and the final decision on all Turkish and foreign applications
rested with the Council of Ministers. In this respect, the level of governmental
involvement in the permit process is reminiscent of the Ottoman Period, during
which the ultimate decision-maker was the Sublime Porte. Foreign applicants
were required to make their applications to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MoFA) through Turkey’s embassies in their own countries. The MoFA was
required to send its review of the application to the MoE, and the Council of
Ministers made the final decision based on the entire dossier.
One of the significant decisions of the regulation was to make the directors
responsible for taking the necessary conservation measures and carrying out
restorations and repairs at their sites. They were also obliged to take into
consideration the MoE’s requests pertaining to the conservation and restoration
considering that archaeological explorations during the Ottoman Empire was also carried out
by members of foreign diplomatic missions –such as Layard and Botta, from the British and
French missions respectively. The same limitation exists in the current legislation Law no:
2863.
109 This is essentially the most significant difference between Turkish and foreign-run research,
as otherwise there are only minor procedural differences. One example is the requirement for
governmental representatives to be appointed to foreign projects to know a Western language,
who also cannot work at foreign-run projects on two consecutive years, most likely to prevent
familiarization. Foreign projects are also required to hire a site guard.
66
of immoveable antiquities and to take the necessary measures110. Financial
responsibilities of directors were similar to previous legislations, and included,
in addition to the excavation costs, the expenses of governmental
representatives, salaries of site guards, and costs incurred as a result of
damages that might occur during the excavation.
The 1970s were a turning point in archaeology and heritage conservation in
Turkey not only for this new law. The establishment of the Ministry of Culture
(MoC) and the transfer of responsibilities for archaeological sites from the
MoE is another development. The start of the annual ERMs by the new
Ministry in 1979 marks the beginning of periodic information dissemination
(Shoup 2008:131). This decade also saw closer integration with international
counterparts and its reflections on the conservation practice. The Architectural
Heritage Year in 1975, in particular, had significant impacts on heritage
conservation111 in Turkey, especially in “legislation on cultural heritage
conservation, organizational restructuring, new financial sources, integrated
urban planning processes, and increased local awareness and collaboration”
(Özgönül 2015:340). This move continued with the ratification of the
UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1982.
In 1983, a decade after its introduction the Law no: 1710 was replaced by the
Law on the Conservation of Cultural and Natural Assets no:2863. This remains
in effect today with its amendments and additional regulatory documents. It
describes the specifications for conducting archaeological research and
excavations and establishes the organisational structure for cultural heritage
conservation.
110 The regulation stated that backfilling required prior MoE consent, which demonstrates early
on that it is not a preferred tool for conservation, and that excavated sites were primarily
intended to be left open for visitors to see.
111 The formation of ‘identification and registration’ and ‘conservation planning’ units are two
tangible impacts (Şahin Güçhan & Kurul 2009:29).
67
2.1.4 1983-2004
Except for an amendment in 1987, the Law no: 2863 remained relatively
unchanged until 2004 when it underwent a major revamp. The law introduced
the concept of cultural assets (kültür varlıkları), replacing the long-standing
use of the terms of ‘antiquities’ and ‘monument’, and created a new
conservation tool in the form of ‘conservation and development plans’112 that
were to be prepared for all designated conservation areas113. A decentralized
organizational structure was introduced that included a central principle-
making entity, the Supreme Council for the Conservation of Cultural and
Natural Properties114, and a regional decision-making entity, in the form of
regional councils for the conservation of cultural and natural assets, which
were to be consulted on all conservation planning processes and other
interventions pertaining to conservation areas and listed buildings.
The law also introduced the concept of ‘valorisation’, defined as “the display
and arrangement of cultural and natural assets, and their presentation utilising
scientific techniques”, which should be read in conjunction with the way the
authorities increasingly began to view cultural heritage as an asset. The early
1980s had marked a period in which the use of cultural heritage for tourism
became further embedded into the administrative and legislative structures.
The enactment of the Tourism Incentives Law in 1982, demonstrates the
recognition of the tourism potentials of cultural heritage, including
archaeological sites, as it called for the designation of tourism areas with a
view to ‘natural, historic, archaeological and socio-cultural tourism values’. In
this context, site presentation and valorisation became the new focuses of the
MoC. This is further reflected in the 1987 amendment of the Law no: 2863, as
112 A definition of these plans was only added to the law with its 2004 amendment.
113 It was only in the 1990s with the publication of the relevant terms of reference that
conservation plans began to be prepared (Şahin Güçhan & Kurul 2009:30).
114 It develops and issues principles for the conservation and use of archaeological sites.
68
it modified the term ‘valorisation’ by adding the word ‘use’ to its definition115.
This new approach, which valued the way cultural heritage could be used and
integrated into the contemporary world, is also observed in the MoC’s
approach towards archaeological sites that promoted their “valorisation and
appropriate use” in a way that would be beneficial to the public (ed. Kültür ve
Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü 1992:10).
In terms of archaeological practice, the law contained a separate section, much
like its predecessor, on permit conditions, requirements and duties.
Significantly, excavation directors were held responsible for providing the
maintenance, conservation and presentation of archaeological sites. This was
further cemented in a dedicated Regulation on Research, Soundings and
Excavations, which remains valid to this day with several amended articles
(Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarıyla İlgili Olarak Yapılacak Araştırma, Sondaj ve
Kazılar Hakkında Yönetmelik, 1984), where the directors’ conservation
responsibilities were reiterated. The new law had one additional requirement
for foreign projects in that any expropriation costs that would be required
during the project would have to be covered. Previously there was no reference
as to who would bear the costs.
Following the enactment of the law, the late 1980s and early 1990s saw an
increased MoC interest in archaeological sites, their inventorization, and a site-
scale perspective in their conservation. In 1989, in a bid to increase resources
for and local interest in archaeological sites, the MoC initiated a project that,
among its other aims, enabled the utilization of entrance fee revenues for
maintenance, conservation and presentation purposes (Ministry of Culture
1989). Although limited to 12 provinces, it produced site presentation plans
and infrastructural improvements for a number of sites. The preparation of
115 The definition reads “the display, arrangement, and use of cultural and natural assets, and
their presentation by means of scientific techniques”.
69
conservation plans for archaeological sites116, inventory efforts117, and the
organisation of a national symposium on conservation and valorisation of
archaeological sites are other indicators demonstrating the growing interest in
archaeological sites in the 1990s.
Turkey’s efforts to join the EU during the late 1990s and the early 2000s led
to an integration process that resulted in numerous legislative changes118 that
aimed to harmonize Turkish regulations and institutions with their Western
counterparts119. It was in this period that Turkey ratified the European
Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised 1992).
MoCT’s focus on site conservation increased, emphasizing the equal
importance of conservation and archaeological research (Pasinli 2003:II).
The most significant organizational restructuring to impact cultural heritage
conservation was the merger of the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of
Tourism (MoCT) in 2003. This heralded an “era of change” (Şahin Güçhan &
Kurul 2009:33). While the government’s primary aim was to economize on the
number of its ministries and cutting down on tasks (Kurul & Şahin Güçhan
2009; Özgüner 2015:71), this move was also considered to be a reflection of
the “pro-business orientation” of the government (Shoup 2008:139). The
merger also made evident the growing correlation between cultural heritage
and tourism, further demonstrated by some of the subsequent regulations. The
new era gave rise to significant transformations in archaeological conservation
116 One of these sites was Hierapolis. In the early 2000s METU prepared an assessment of this
plan (authored by E. Madran and N. Özgönül) in connection with Turkey’s first site
management plan. See Ersoy (2002) for further details.
117 In the early 1990s, the MoC requested from excavation directors that they carry out surface
surveys to contribute to the national inventory.
118 The years 2002-2004 resulted in amendments in 53 laws through eight ‘harmonization
packages’ (Özgönül 2014).
119 In 1999, Turkey became one of the earliest signatories (it went into force in 2000) compared
with other European countries such as UK, Germany, Belgium, and Italy, which ratified it in
2000, 2003, 2011, and 2015 respectively.
70
in Turkey, particularly in the development of new tools for conservation,
emphasis on conservation during archaeological projects, and increased
responsibilities for excavation directors.
2.1.5 2004-2009
The Law no: 5226, enforced in 2004, made substantial changes to the existing
law on cultural heritage conservation (Law no: 2863), in a move to adapt the
legislation to international developments on cultural heritage management,
decentralisation, and financing of conservation interventions in particular (eds.
Madran & Bozkurt 2008:224). The modified law widened the definition of
‘cultural asset’ to recognize the social aspects of previous cultures, and added
the phrase ‘scientifically and culturally original value’ in its designation. Other
significant moves were the increased public participation during planning,
increased local authority involvement in the decision-making processes, and
development of new financial tools for heritage conservation.
Of particular importance for archaeological conservation practices were the
newly introduced concepts of ‘management plans’ and ‘landscape design
projects’. The former, defined in further detail through a separate regulation,
were primarily conservation plans that defined annual and five-year
implementation phases that were to be revised every five years. The latter were
more architectural/landscape design projects than conceptual plans and defined
site presentation conditions.
Following the enactment of the law, MoCT issued a number of regulatory
documents in swift succession concerning archaeological permits and
conservation projects undertaken during excavations. They demonstrated the
relative significance of archaeological sites for the newly created MoCT and
confirmed a shift in focus from excavations towards conservation and site
presentation.
In 2004, a circular on archaeological permits was released, which stated that
MoCT’s primary approach towards archaeological excavations would be one
71
that valued quality over numbers. Henceforth, the goal would be to have well-
equipped excavations (in terms of experts, facilities and finances) and for
applicants to demonstrate their long-term commitment. MoCT had been
commending the growing interest in archaeological research, which it
attributed to the increase in the number of excavations and surveys, however,
it had also expressed that it was unable to deal with the ensuing workload, as
a result of which it was forced to reject many new applications (Pasinli
2002:IV). The circular called for 10-year plans, prioritization of facilities
(excavation houses and storage) and a resolution of expropriation issues, all of
which are indicators of a long-term commitment. Singling out foreign
directors, the circular reiterated previous regulations emphasising their
responsibility in ensuring site security and recruitment of sufficient number of
site guards. In a move to regulate and standardize conservation projects
prepared by excavation teams, MoCT made it compulsory to submit projects
to the relevant regional conservation councils prior to their implementation.
The following year, MoCT released two new directives within the space of
three months, one relating to conservation projects undertaken during
archaeological excavations, and the other on a review process of conservation
work. The directive of June 2005 was the first regulatory document to focus
specifically on conservation measures during archaeological excavations
(restoration, conservation and landscape design projects) and aimed to
standardize conservation and presentation measures. As a document primarily
on architectural conservation interventions and site presentation, it defined
conservation principles, with particular reference to the guiding principles of
the Venice Charter and the World Heritage Convention, and described
appropriate architectural conservation techniques applicable during
excavations120. The directive required archaeological teams to take necessary
120 The directive defined general conservation interventions, such as anastylosis,
reconstruction, landscape design etc., and advised on conservation methodologies and
principles. It also defined in detail types of architectural interventions such as consolidation,
72
measures to preserve exposed remains during the season and, also for the first
time, called for conservation work to be carried out by bespoke multi-
disciplinary teams (taking into consideration each sites’ own conditions)121.
One other significant aspect of this document was its direct reference to
community engagement. Although written in relation to landscape design
projects, the directive called for communication with local communities and
“creating programmes to develop ownership and awareness”. The directive
also interlinked and mandated coordination of conservation work with
planning documents, such as management plans.
The other directive that came into force in August 2005,122 concerned the
review of conservation implementations at archaeological excavations. The
directive stated its aim as “raising the profile of excavations and conservation
work to international standards” while seeking to resolve problems
encountered in the practice and “to place Turkish archaeology to the position
it deserves”. To that effect, it put conservation work once again on an equal
footing with excavation work, and required directors to incorporate
conservation into archaeological research and to submit relevant annual and
three-year plans. They were also encouraged to increase their human and
financial resources and carry out longer site work (approximately three
months). Significantly, this directive introduced a review commission123 to
assess permit applications –creation of a commission/board to review and
assess permit applications had been on MoCT’s agenda at least since the late
1990s (Özdoğan 2001:100). More importantly, however, conservation work
reconstruction, cleaning, relocation, and described architectural remedies. Significantly, it
advised against anastylosis projects if the site generally lacked a third dimension and called
for teams to give due diligence to periodic maintenance.
121 The expert fields referred to, such as conservation architects and structural engineers, also
indicates the architectural focus of the document.
122 This directive was rescinded in 2009.
123 The seven-member commission consists of five MoCT staff, including the deputy
undersecretary, head of the Excavation Unit, MoCT experts, and two external academics.
73
became an assessment criterion, to be reviewed based on the on-site
investigation of a team of MoCT experts, thereby making conservation directly
part of the permit process124.
The final regulatory document relevant in this period is the site management
regulation125, again put into effect in 2005. It called for the preparation of
management plans for designated ‘management areas’, which were distinct
from conservation areas and may exceed their boundaries. The document also
defined a management mechanism that consisted of various boards, including
advisory, review, and coordination. Through this regulation, management
plans firmly entered the conservation discourse in Turkey and gradually began
to be prepared primarily for archaeological sites126. However, issues such as
the relationship of this new conservation tool with the existing conservation
and development plans continued to be debated for a number of years. The
regulations put in place and the changing policies of MoCT during these five
years had seismic impacts on archaeological practice and conservation of
archaeological sites. In terms of foreign projects, on the other hand, they did
not introduce particularly different stipulations than their Turkish counterparts
but rather upheld previous conditions.
2.1.6 2009 to the present
Regulations set in motion in 2009 marked yet another turning point for
archaeological conservation practices and archaeological research, especially
concerning foreign-run excavations. In June 2009, MoCT issued a new circular
124 The directors are informed of the review commission’s assessment and of any perceived
deficiencies, and are given one year to revolve them. Failure to comply results in the freezing
of their permit for one year, followed by cancellation if there is no development after another
year.
125 The amendment of the law had called for such a regulatory document.
126 The plans were either initiated by MoCT or by the excavating teams. An example of the
former is the management plan for Ani, which was supported by UNESCO as part of the
Millennium Development Goal Initiative Alliances for Culture Tourism in Eastern Anatolia
(Orbaşlı 2013:238).
74
announcing its latest permit procedures. Primary issues were excavation
periods, information to be supplied during applications, financial guarantees,
and in an unprecedented move the appointment Turkish co-directors to foreign
projects. The circular required directors to spend four months of the year127
working on their archaeological projects, two of which could be field work
(including excavations, conservation and landscape design) with the remaining
time dedicated to publications and further conservation work128. Permit
applications were to include a report129, which justified work in the proposed
area and expanded on the expected results, and included a map depicting the
area to be excavated and conserved –a requirement recalling the earlier
Ottoman regulations.
The stipulation for Turkish co-directorships was an unparalleled
intervention130. MoCT’s justification was its intention to “track foreign-run
archaeological excavations and enable Turkish archaeologists to benefit
scientifically from foreign archaeologists” (Erbil 2009). In December of the
same year, however, the requirement for co-directorship was amended to
‘assistant directorship’, and in 2013 this became a requirement for all projects
(Turkish and foreign). This circular also required publications in at least two
languages, one of which had to be Turkish. This was the first time that Turkish
127 From the mid-2000s, regulations like that of August 2005 had been referring to periods of
time to be spent at the site.
128 The unfavourable reception of this article led to its rescission –subsequent directives [the
2011 Directive (Article 9ğ), the 2013 Directive (Article 11e), and the latest directive of 2016
(Article 9e)] asked for excavations to take place for at least two months.
129 The report was to also include information on the previous season’s work and its results,
the state of conservation work, site security, unfinished projects and justifications,
publications, conservation and storage of finds, technical infrastructure, and use of the budget.
130 Signs of separate regulations for foreign research had in fact surfaced in 2006 when a
newspaper reported on stricter regulations for foreign-run projects and cited the Director
General of Cultural Assets and Museums. The article is misleading, however, as it implies
foreign-run projects had been operating fairly unregulatedly (Zaman 2006).
75
publications were made mandatory and this requirement has been included in
all subsequent regulatory documents131.
During the same year, MoCT, in a bid to relieve itself of its increasing duties
regarding cultural heritage (Pulhan 2009:142), turned its attention to
privatization of services at archaeological sites. A directive in 2004 and the
Principle Decision no: 745, which enabled privatization of services and spaces
within archaeological sites, had already paved the way for such interventions,
and by outsourcing its various responsibilities to the private sector, MoCT
created another actor in the field of cultural heritage conservation. Privatization
of services, publicized as a public-private partnership by MoCT (T.C. Kültür
ve Turizm Bakanlığı Döner Sermaye İşletmesi Merkez Müdürlüğü 2014), was
considered to be a way of improving and modernizing service quality, and
thereby increasing visitor numbers (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Strateji
Geliştirme Başkanlığı 2010). 2009 saw the privatization of sales units of more
than 50 museums and archaeological sites in Turkey (Atlas 2009) and this
trend continued with other tenders in 2010 to privatize ticket booths and in
2013 the second tender for gift shops132.
Other MoCT policies at this time emphasized conservation and publications,
and especially focused on Turkey’s repatriation claims from foreign museums
–the latter significantly impacting on foreign-run archaeological research as
permits became linked to the return of artefacts. Ertuğrul Günay, the-then
Minister of Culture and Tourism, heralded this in early 2011, stating that the
primary item on MoCT’s agenda was the “repatriation of unfairly taken
archaeological artefacts”, followed by extending excavation seasons,
131 Previously, regulations referred only to ‘reports written in Turkish’ to be submitted
following the end of the field season.
132 These developments resulted in debates in academic circles as well as in parliament. A
parliamentary question posed in 2010, which enquired if entire archaeological sites were going
to be privatized, reflected the continuing lack of clarity on the matter. See T.C. Kültür ve
Turizm Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı (2010).
76
preparatory periods and time allocated to conservation as well as Turkish
publication of results (TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı 2011). Similarly, the
opening speech of the-then Director General of Cultural Assets and Museums,
M. Süslü, at the 33rd ERM in May 2011, reflected this focus. Stressing the need
to maintain a conservation-use balance, he called for projects to put more
weight on restoration and publications. His reference to setting up criteria to
that effect presaged the directive that was issued later in the year. The emphasis
on conservation reached its peak in 2012, when the 1984 Regulation on
research, soundings and excavations acquired an additional article stating that
no new excavation areas could be opened in continuing projects without
completion of ‘restoration, conservation and landscape design’.
The directive of 2011 (Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarıyla İlgili Yapılacak Yüzey
Araştırması, Sondaj ve Kazı Çalışmalarının Yürütülmesi Hakkında Yönerge)
primarily concentrated on the administration of archaeological research and
outlined permit procedures. Conservation requirements featured heavily in the
document, which needed to be carried out “in accordance with contemporary
conservation principles”133. Following in the footsteps of the June 2005
directive, the 2011 directive called for conservation specialists (architects,
restorers or conservators) to be part of teams and, for the first time, sought
memberships of professional chambers for those who will carry out
conservation work. The directive’s emphasis on conservation134 can also be
observed in its requirement for directors to identify archaeological reserve
areas135. Also, permit applications were required to inform on site protection
measures and the state of architectural and artefact conservation interventions.
133 Although not referenced, they can be assumed to be the Venice Charter and the UNESCO
World Heritage Convention named in previous regulatory documents.
134 This emphasis can also be observed in the article that states Turkish-run projects should
utilise MoCT’s funding primarily for conservation.
135 Although these areas were mentioned in the 1973 and 1984 regulations, it remained in the
context of areas to be determined by the State.
77
In terms of foreign projects, use of the Turkish language in correspondence
and publications was emphasized. The directive reiterated the appointment of
Turkish assistant-directors at foreign excavations who were to be responsible,
together with the directors, for the long-term strategic planning of projects.
MoCT announced its latest assessment system with this directive. An
assessment system had already been introduced in the August 2005 directive
involving a review commission (now named the Advisory and Assessment
Board) and an on-site investigation team (now named the Review Board), but
this new document provided further details into its structure. The advisory
board136 was made responsible for evaluating permit applications and deciding
on cancellations according to a number of criteria, one of which was the
provision for site conservation. Conditions that would invoke permit
cancellations were listed specifically for the first time, including failure to
carry out works requested by MoCT, to resolve conservation issues identified
during the review, and lack of conservation and security measures. These, once
again, accentuate the prominence given to conservation work by MoCT.
Two years later, in 2013, MoCT released the latest version of the directive137
(Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarıyla İlgili Yapılacak Yüzey Araştırması, Sondaj ve
Kazı Çalışmalarının Yürütülmesi Hakkında Yönerge), mainly to remedy some
of the criticized articles concerning archaeological survey practice. Differences
can be observed in the responsibilities of directors and conservation
requirements. Interestingly, the directive made it compulsory for Turkish-run
136 The advisory board consists of four scientists of various disciplines, depending on the sites
in question, and four MoCT personnel –a new board is formed each year. The Review Board
consists of MoCT experts and may carry out site visits before, during or after field seasons.
The directive does not provide information on the process through which it makes its
assessments.
137 The directive has since been renewed in 2016 but this version has not been included here
because the temporal scope of this research is 1979-2014. While it remains outside the time-
frame, it has been referred to where relevant in order to highlight most recent conditions. This
new directive does not provide any significant changes to procedures regarding foreign-run
projects.
78
projects to ensure that their institution matched MoCT’s financial
contribution138. New articles concerning foreign teams included the
requirement for project directors to accredit their qualifications with the High
Education Council (YÖK) and to ensure MoCT through diplomatic procedures
that the project would be financially supported throughout its duration.
Significantly, financial responsibilities of foreign directors were listed for the
first time, which, other than the customary obligations of wages of
governmental representatives, guards, workers, now included project and
implementation costs of all conservation work as well as those relating to
visitor centres and site museums139.
In terms of conservation, the directive added conservation architects to its list
of experts to be present in archaeological teams140, and added another layer of
inspection by making it compulsory to acquire the Survey and Monuments
Board’s approval before implementing conservation projects.
2.2 Requirements concerning foreign-run archaeological projects
As examined in the previous section, there are no separate regulations for
foreign-run archaeological projects in Turkey and they operate according to
the same legal provisions (Law no: 2863, its amendments, directives and
circulars) as those that pertain for excavations led by Turkish institutions. In
most of these documents, statements are made in reference to all excavation
teams in Turkey but differentiating ‘local’ (yerli) and ‘foreign’ (yabancı)
excavations, and although there is no clear definition in these documents as to
what constitutes a ‘foreign excavation’, the institution to whom the applicant
138 The directive of 2016 has changed this condition and there is only a reference to the
financial support of relevant institutions without any note on the level of support.
139 The directive of 2016 does not refer to museums.
140 A new phrase “conservation expert” was added with the directive of 2016, to collectively
denote artefact conservators, conservation architects, engineers etc.
79
director is affiliated, and the main funding organisation are recognized rather
than the nationality of the director.
Legislation sets the same requirements and conditions for both local and
foreign excavation teams, such as those concerning the duration and renewal
of permits, professional qualifications of persons wishing to direct excavations
in Turkey, publication rights etc. Different conditions for foreign-run
excavations apply mainly in matters concerning the application procedure. In
effect both Turkish and foreign-run teams have similar financial
responsibilities, however, the former group of projects receive substantial
funding from MoCT, while foreign projects have to guarantee they can cover
all associated costs. MoCT has co-funded certain projects in some exceptional
cases. While for a long time the main difference in requirements between local
and foreign teams used to be in the application procedure, over the course of
the past three decades, the regulations on foreign research in Turkey have
become more detailed and have invoked further responsibilities.
2.2.1 Permit applications
As mentioned above, Eski Eserler Sondaj ve Kazı Yönetmeliği, issued in 1973,
introduced different application procedures for Turkish and foreign projects.
While Turkish project applications are made directly to MoCT, foreign
applications have an additional layer of bureaucracy in the form of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, to which their applications are sent by Turkish embassies
in their own countries. This difference in procedure has been repeated in
subsequent regulations and continues to be so.
Applications by foreign nationals to direct archaeological excavations are
made to the relevant Turkish embassies or consulates in those countries141. The
dossiers, written in Turkish, are delivered to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign
141 Applications can be assessed previously by their own research institutes/institutions as is
the case with ARIT, which requires application dossiers to be sent to them approximately two
months before MoCT’s deadline in order to carry out a review.
80
Affairs, which then forwards them to MoCT along with its own assessments
of the applications. This is a procedure to be followed by both first-time
applicants as well as those that are applying to renew their annual permits.
Otherwise, the same requirements apply to foreign and Turkish applicants. In
terms of new applications, the following rules have to be abided:
• the applicant’s undergraduate degree must be in archaeology, or if
relevant, in anthropology and art history, and they must be affiliated
with an academic institution,
• the applicant must at least be an associate professor, have five years’
field experience and have published previously,
• the applicant must provide an accreditation for his/her academic
degree,
• they should not have any legal reason not to carry out an excavation,
• archaeological surface surveys in the area that is planned to be
excavated must have been completed, preferably with a site
documentation in 1/1000 and/or 1/500 scale,
• affiliated institutions must provide a written document to confirm that
the director is supported financially for the duration of the project
(foreign directors are required to provide this via diplomatic channels),
• a long-term programme and information on long-term financial
resources and amounts, along with a work schedule must be submitted.
In the case of permit renewals, all directors, including Turkish, are expected to
provide an application report with information on the following (as stated in
the 2013 directive142):
• works finalised in the previous season and justification of those that
could not be carried out,
• justification for absent team members,
142 The same requirements are listed in the 2016 directive.
81
• conservation and security of the excavation area,
• the stage of architectural restoration and conservation works,
• measures taken to ensure the safety and storage of finds,
• sufficiency of technical infrastructure,
• comparison between the actual budget and planned budget,
• publications made in relation to the work carried out in the previous
season.
2.2.2 Monitoring of archaeological excavations
Since the first regulations in the late Ottoman period, archaeological
excavations have been monitored by representatives143 appointed by the
regulating authority. Representatives are appointed to a different project each
year, so that one person does not work at one site alone. They are responsible
for ensuring that work proceeds according to the relevant legislation and
informing MoCT of any cases to the contrary. Present throughout the duration
of the project, they send periodic progress reports to MoCT. The reports are
required to refer to a number of issues including the excavation results,
duration of excavations, the discovered archaeological finds and architectural
remains. Other than this monitoring responsibility, the representative is
required to carry out several bureaucratic duties.
Although technically not a monitoring position, assistant-directorships may be
examined in this context. Introduced in the December 2009 circular, the
appointment of Turkish assistant-directors is compulsory for foreign teams.
Initially, their duties were not fully formulated save for continuing the
excavation in the absence of the director. Information on their qualifications
143 The title of the person monitoring excavations on behalf of MoCT has been different in
foreign and Turkish-run excavations. In the 1973 Law, they are called “representative” for all
projects, while the Law no: 2863 called those appointed to foreign-run excavations as
“representative of MoCT” and those at Turkish-run projects as “authorised expert on behalf of
MoCT”. This continues in subsequent documents until the 2016 regulation, which does not
differentiate between foreign and Turkish projects and calls them “representative of MoCT”.
82
were mentioned (graduate of archaeology or art history and hold at least a PhD
degree). The 2011 and 2013 directives on Surveys, Soundings and Excavations
carried out on cultural and natural properties (Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarıyla
İlgili Yapılacak Yüzey Araştırması, Sondaj ve Kazı Çalışmalarının Yürütülmesi
Hakkında Yönerge), essentially continued this framework in terms of foreign-
run projects and called for a Turkish assistant-director for foreign projects. The
latter directive, however, extended the assistant-directorship rule to include
Turkish-run projects. The new directives offered further information about the
qualifications and responsibilities of an assistant-director, who was defined as
a scholar who assists the director in the scientific, financial and administrative
organisation of the excavation, in eliminating problems, and is accountable to
MoCT in the absence of the director. They are still required to hold at least a
PhD and additionally must have three years’ field experience. They are also
responsible for assisting the director in the strategic planning of the excavation.
2.2.3 Obligations
The different regulations put in place since the 1970s place certain obligations
on foreign projects (only financial obligations and those that are specifically
confined to foreign projects are mentioned) (Table 2.1). In this respect, the
financial responsibilities of foreign projects since the 1970s primarily include:
• costs of the site guard,
• damages that may occur during the field season,
• to return the site to its former state,
• pay the wages and travel expenses of the governmental representative
(payments related to this and the above-mentioned items are pre-
determined by MoCT and submitted at the time of permit
applications/renewals),
• submit a written document stating that sufficient funding to carry out
the project has been provided by their respective institutions,
• cover any expropriation costs that may incur,
83
• costs associated with site conservation and site security.
Table 2.1 MoCT’s financial and other requirements
1973 1980s 2004 2005 2009 2011 2013
governmental representative ○● ○●
●
site guard and site security ○● ● ● ●
○ ○●
expropriation
●
○ ○●
damages during excavations ○ ●
○●
conservation and restoration ○● ○● ○● ○● ○● ○● ○●
conservation projects and
implementations
●
visitor centre and site museum
●
accreditation
●
Turkish co-director
●
Turkish assistant-director
● ● ○●
Turkish publications
● ● ●
Turkish correspondence and
applications
● ●
○ All projects
● Foreign projects
The 2013 directive provided a list of financial responsibilities of foreign
directors, including but not limited to:
• all costs related with excavation work,
• wages of the governmental representative,
• wages of workers and the security guard,
• expropriation costs,
• any damages during the excavation,
• protection, conservation and restoration costs,
• transportation of any cultural assets to the museum,
• preparation of conservation/restoration projects and their
implementation costs,
• project preparation and implementation costs of visitor centres and site
museums.
84
Significantly, the last three items have not been mentioned in any other
regulatory document before, and are not cited for Turkish-run projects. This
list demonstrates that foreign projects are required to finance (and guarantee
long-term commitment to) a wide range of activities, which are not limited to
specifically archaeological research and excavation, but also include site
security, personnel wages, and, most relevant for this research, site
conservation. While Turkish projects have the same responsibilities, they are
financially supported by MoCT. In terms of other obligations, as shown in the
table above, the past few years have seen an emergence of requirements in
relation to Turkish publications, correspondence and Turkish assistant-
directorships.
2.2.4 Assessment procedures
MoCT elaborated an assessment mechanism in the mid-2000s to monitor the
progress of excavations, involving an Advisory and Assessment Board and a
Review Commission. The former144 primarily works on the assessment of first-
time applications and on-going but problematic excavations, basing its
assessment on the investigations of the latter.
The Review Commission145 visits sites periodically, without prior notification,
and notes issues such as the state of the excavation house, site conservation,
site presentation and landscaping, site security etc. The intention is to monitor
progress as well as to ensure the institutionalization of projects in line with
MoCT’s intention of working with teams that can guarantee funding for
excavation and conservation, and therefore commit to one particular site for
the long-term. Architectural conservation, landscaping, and publications are
priority areas for the commission, but they also review excavation techniques,
144 It consists of academics of relevant disciplines such as protohistory, classical archaeology,
art history, and the General Director, heads of relevant units, and MoCT experts.
145 It consists of a member of staff (usually an architect) of the Survey and Monuments Council,
the relevant museum director, and a member of staff from MoCT’s Excavations Unit. A
representative of the relevant conservation council or an academic may join in some cases.
85
conservation and landscaping techniques, expropriations, excavation house,
storage facilities, and site security etc. (MoCT comm. 2016).
The commission visits a number of sites, normally during excavation seasons,
or out of season if that is not possible, the latter allowing them to review post-
excavation conservation measures, and spends one working day going through
the interventions of the team with regards to their annual programme.
Considering the number of excavations, a site can be visited by a commission
every few years: in the case of problematic issues, however, they may be
revisited the following year. Subsequent to the visit, the commission writes a
condition report, outlining the state of conservation work, landscaping, and
excavation house, and presents its findings to MoCT with recommendations to
the excavation team on the types of actions that should be included in their
next work schedule, which is then negotiated with the excavation director, who
may be called to MoCT for discussions (MoCT comm. 2016).
To summarize, MoCT’s assessment revolves around two major issues: firstly,
concrete evidence of an institutionalised146 excavation in the form of long-term
strategic programmes, a fully operational excavation house, and storage
facilities, and secondly, continuing progress in the conservation of the site,
with particular emphasis on architectural interventions, as described in the
previous section (MoCT comm. 2016).
2.3 Review
Present regulations on cultural heritage conservation are fundamentally based
on Ottoman laws that were put in place to monitor archaeological practice, but
which were originally issued as a reaction against foreign misconduct and as
part of westernisation processes. As Eldem notes, they essentially reflect a
146 The intention to have institutionalised and long-term archaeological projects can be traced
to the 2004 circular, in which two articles refer to resolving issues related with excavation
houses and storage facilities, which was later expanded through requirements of five and ten-
year programmes.
86
“defensive and protectionist tone” (Chatzoudis 2012), a stance which appears
to have pervaded much of the subsequent laws on heritage conservation.
Regulations for foreign researchers working in Turkey align with the
recommendations of the UNESCO Recommendations on International
Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations of 1956 that call for
scientific and archaeological qualifications from excavators, rules that define
permit conditions of equal footing with nationals of the country, such as
information on the allocated period and reasons for withdrawal (articles 13,
14), obligations of the ‘excavator’ during and after the completion of work,
including conservation responsibilities (Article 21), and publication
requirements (Article 24b).
In terms of conservation during archaeological work, regulations underwent
significant changes over the past four decades signified by a growing
recognition that archaeological sites have other potentials beyond research, in
particular concerning their economic benefits for tourism. Parallel to this,
conservation has become a priority for the successive officials of MoC/MoCT,
especially from the early 1990s onwards, becoming even more pronounced in
the early 2000s and culminating in a series of regulations put in place from the
mid-2000s. Regulations mainly revolved around sharing its responsibilities in
conservation, planning, management, and public outreach.
The value of archaeological and conservation practices for MoCT has mostly
come to lie in exposing of visually impressive remains and their restoration
and presentation to visitors. At the same time, MoCT has asserted itself in
making knowledge acquired during archaeological processes more accessible
by Turkish publications a requirement for foreign teams. The most recent
regulations that introduced new conditions, such as co/assistant directors,
privatization of services, pressing for longer excavation seasons, and put
further emphasis on conservation etc. were attributed to an increased interest
87
in using archaeological sites as economic incentives as well as growing
nationalism.
It should be noted that, while foreign presence in archaeological research was
a major impetus that shaped Ottoman regulations, this presence did not impact
legislations in the Republic period until recently. It is only since 2009 that
various rules have been put in place either for further regulation of foreign
research or as a reaction against specific incidents that occurred at foreign-run
archaeological excavations.
Having examined the historical progress of legislative provisions concerning
archaeological conservation and foreign-run archaeological excavations, the
following chapter details the conservation practices at the selected sites from
the late 1970s onwards.
88
89
CHAPTER 3
CONSERVATION PRACTICES AT SELECTED FOREIGN-RUN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS IN TURKEY (1979-2014)
This chapter presents the development of conservation practices at 19 sites
over a period of 35 years (1979-2014), thereby setting the scene for the
following chapter, where conservation practices at these sites are assessed. The
issues explored reflect the widening scope of archaeological conservation147:
• What type of conservation work was carried out?
• Who carried out the work?
• Where does the funding for conservation come from?
• Were local communities engaged and if so how?
Conservation work focuses mainly on building-scale and site-scale
interventions and are explored under the sub-headings of ‘site conservation’,
‘site presentation’, ‘management planning’; however, as each site presents a
different case, there are instances when one or more of these topics are not
covered as they are not relevant. Where possible, information is given on
statements relating to conservation approaches and methodologies before
moving on to the relevant sub-sections. ‘Site conservation’ involves building-
scale interventions such as anastylosis, reconstructions, shelters etc. that were
147 This chapter neither aims nor claims to describe all conservation work undertaken at each
of the examined sites. The main purpose is to present a general understanding of conservation
practices at these sites based on available and accessible information. While there may be
many cases where interventions were never published, or relevant data not made public, this
does not necessarily mean such work was not carried out.
90
carried out by the conservation teams of each archaeological project148 and
site-scale interventions such as capping, mortar repairs etc., that are carried out
as part of a programme rather than singular interventions, and any other site-
scale conservation programmes including monitoring and maintenance. ‘Site
presentation’ refers to significant work carried out to make sites more
accessible to visitors and locals, and also considers how data accumulated
during the excavations is shared with the public. ‘Management planning’
relates explicitly to management plans, prepared either by the excavation teams
themselves or by other stakeholder parties in collaboration with the teams.
In terms of people carrying out conservation work, the aim is to provide
information on the people, their professions and their roles for some major
projects. The professions of those involved in architectural conservation, site
presentation, management planning etc were researched. Where possible,
information was collected not only on persons carrying out architectural and
site-scale conservation interventions but on occasion those working on artefact
conservation in order to portray the variety of conservation professionals
involved149. Also explored were for how long people stayed engaged with the
excavation as well as the structure of the conservation team, if there was one.
The section on funding focuses particularly on sources for conservation to
understand the types of organisations that funded specifically conservation
work as well as the types of conservation projects that were funded –where
available, the amount of support was also noted. While information about
funding of entire archaeological projects is mostly available in the ERM
proceedings or in other scientific or popular publications (for most of the sites),
the same level of information is not accessible for funding of conservation
148 As this research focuses on conservation practices at foreign-run excavations, projects of
other institutions at the same sites, such as restorations carried out by local museums or culture
directorates, are outside the scope of this research.
149 It must be noted, however, that artefact conservation practices as a whole are not the focus
of this research.
91
work. Nevertheless, in most of the cases it was possible to obtain an agreeable
level of information.
The section regarding community engagement was concerned with whether
there are specific projects to engage local communities with the archaeological
research and/or conservation practices or other means of interaction with
locals. This section also includes project websites and social media as
interfaces between the archaeological excavation and the public at large.
The main source of this chapter is the reports of the case study sites published
in the ERM proceedings (79 volumes)150. In addition to this corpus, other
publications, authored by team members of each archaeological project, and
official project websites were consulted. Also, interviews conducted as part of
this research with the directors and (where possible) with conservation
professionals at each site were used. The sites are examined according to the
country of the leading institution (Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy,
Japan, UK, USA).
3.1 Austria
3.1.1 Ephesos
Ephesos is situated in the Selçuk district of Izmir. The site has been
investigated since the second half of the 19th century. The first excavations,
carried out by John Turtle Wood on behalf of the British Museum, focused on
the Temple of Artemis. David George Hogarth also excavated there in the early
20th century. Austrian excavations, focusing on the Roman town, began in
1895 under the direction of Otto Benndorf and have been continuing annually
since 1954 (ed. Bayram 2008:93). Excavations have been led by Sabine
150 The final set of ERM proceedings consulted were those for the season of 2014, published
in 2016, but where especially relevant, information about season 2015 was added from other
sources.
92
Ladstaetter, director of the OeAI, since 2010. Ephesos was inscribed into the
World Heritage List in 2015.
Settled since the Bronze Age, the site was a vibrant town in the Hellenistic and
Roman periods until its abandonment in the Byzantine period, whereupon
habitation shifted to the Ayasuluk hill to the northeast (Bammer 1997:252).
The initial focus of excavations in the mid-20th century that centred largely on
monumental public buildings gave way to explorations of residential
architecture from the 1970s onwards (Demas 1997:140) and today
archaeological investigations focus on understanding diverse periods and their
tangible remains. They have revealed a settlement with prominent buildings,
including but not limited to, the Artemision and other temples (Hadrian,
Serapis etc.), Terrace Houses and other residential quarters, and numerous
public buildings (Library of Celsus, gymnasia, baths and agoras) (Bammer
1997).
Figure 3.1 Site plan (Gesellschaft der Freunde von Ephesos)
The earlier focus on extensive archaeological excavations changed in the early
1990s to place more emphasis on site conservation and publications. Although
the site is renowned for its large-scale architectural conservation projects and
93
its landmark shelter over Terrace House 2, site maintenance and establishing a
site monitoring system are increasingly becoming focal points of conservation
efforts. The opening of large excavation areas that revealed impressive
architectural remains, coupled with re-erection activities, contributed to the site
becoming a major visitor attraction –mass-tourism has been one of the
constant issues that the team needs to deal with (Krinzinger 2006a:96)–
therefore site conservation and site presentation have been interwoven at
Ephesos over the past six decades. Today, there are numerous conservation
projects running in tandem, and contrary to the earlier decades in which
buildings were left untreated after excavations, the intention is to conserve
them within the same season (Ladstaetter 2016:542). Non-destructive
technology and “targeted and generally small-scale excavations” have become
the norm (Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:51).
Site conservation and presentation
The diversity of architectural conservation approaches is one of the significant
aspects of conservation at Ephesos: they are devoid of a “common concept”
(Ladstaetter 2016:543), and as such represent a “veritable laboratory of
restoration philosophies and practices” (Demas 1997:143). Although various
architectural interventions, such as re-erection of columns, “the simplest form
of anastylosis” (Schmidt 1997:45), took place in an ad-hoc fashion in the early
20th century (Ladstaetter 2016:543), it was not until the 1950s that they became
more common practice. As archaeological activities intensified, unearthed
building remains were re-erected to re-introduce the ‘third dimension’ to the
city (Krinzinger 2006a:89) and to reinstate “some degree of order on the
chaos” that resulted from the excavations (Demas 1997:140). A “building
boom”151 ensued (Ladstaetter 2016:543) resulting in a number of now
151 This period’s work was mostly concerned with quick re-erections, in which prior building
analysis, to become a norm later, was not considered essential, resulting in eclectic outcomes
Bammer (2010:37); Ladstaetter (2016:543).
94
landmark projects, including the Temple of Hadrian, Nymphaeum of Trajan,
and the Memnius Building, whose conservation methodologies, applied by
different architects, were distinct from one another. The former, on the whole,
applied the anastylosis technique, trying to create a complete look while
distinguishing new material from the old, while in the case of the other two
buildings the main principle was truthfulness to the original material without
excessive new additions (“everything else was considered kitsch”) (Bammer
2010:37–38).
The 1970s marked the beginning of a period of major large-scale architectural
projects, initiated with the Celsus Library152 (1971-78) and culminating in the
construction of the new shelter on Terrace House 2153. Examples of this trend
in the 1980s include the South Gate of the Agora (the Mazaus-Mithridates
Gate) as well as the re-erection of the column of the Artemision, the
conservation and restoration of architectural fabric and elements within the
living units of the terrace houses, and more prominently the shelter over
Terrace House 2 (Figure 3.2) (Krinzinger 2006a:91; Bammer 2010:45), which
was later dismantled.
Figure 3.2 Library of Celsus (left), Artemision (right) (the author 2011)
152 This project, carried out by V.M. Strocka and F. Hueber, was instrumental in defining the
new concept of architectural conservation –true to original form etc. (Bammer 2010:45). See
Hueber & Strocka (1975).
153 There were also more organised efforts to manage tourism at Ephesos, as is evidenced by
the master plan prepared in collaboration with the U.S. National Parks Service, and also the
landscape design project including the Ayasuluk hill (Asatekin 1981; Demas 1997:143).
95
A new phase began in 1993 with the appointment of Stefan Karwiese as
director, and focus shifted from large-scale excavations towards
conservation154 following evaluation of previous work155 (Karwiese
1998:721–722; Krinzinger 2006a:91) and concurrent with the MoC’s
increased interest in the site’s conservation and presentation (Ministry of
Culture and Tourism 2013:50). This emphasis was continued under succeeding
directors, in which excavations were limited to targeted investigations
(Krinzinger 2000a:11–12). In response to the MoC’s requests, the theatre and
stadium became two of the major projects156 in the 1990s (Karwiese 1995:422–
423, 1999:610; Bammer 2010:54), for both of which the director stressed the
importance of proper archaeological research before moving on to plans
concerning their conservation and re-use (Karwiese 1998:725, 727).
The most significant project of the 1990s, however, was the new shelter
construction covering Terrace House 2, an area that has remained the focus of
one of the longest conservation efforts at Ephesos since its excavation in the
1960s. The richness of the exposed architectural remains, the impossibility of
relocating them, and a more contextual approach called for an “in situ
museum” (Krinzinger 2000b:60) which meant the buildings needed to be
covered (Krinzinger 2006b:36; Ladstaetter & Zabrana 2014:234). Trial and
error over the next four decades (Figure 3.3) resulted in the existing cover
structure, completed in 2000157 (Krinzinger 2000b). These experiences guided
154 This is also evident in the ERM reports, where conservation efforts start to be given under
separate subtitles or entirely separate articles such as Karwiese (1998:729–736).
155 An international commission decided on three main research areas: the Temple of Artemis,
Terrace Houses, and the Curetes Street (Bammer 2010:55).
156 There are other instances in the 1990s where conservation interventions were carried out at
the request of the MoC, such as at the Yedi Uyurlar (Karwiese 1996:480). A new conservation
project is in preparation (Ladstaetter 2015:609).
157 Until the 1980s, the area had been covered mainly with temporary shelters but there were
also unsuccessful attempts at more permanent shelters over individual rooms and housing
units: the shelter built on two housing units, completed in 1985, was criticised for its use of
concrete, its steep walls, lack of climatic control, and lack of harmony with the site (Bammer
2010:50–51; Ladstaetter & Zabrana 2014:234). Hueber’s subsequent project, awarded after a
96
the commissioning and design of the existing shelter, which was to be
sustainable, provide the required climatic and light conditions, and be
environmentally harmonious (Krinzinger 2006a:92). The implemented project
(1995-2000), to the design of an Austrian group (Wolfdietrich Ziesel and Otto
Häuselmayer), was selected through a closed competition (Figure 3.4)
(Krinzinger 2000b:61). Particularly due to its covering material, a “textile
membrane, strengthened with fiberglass and Teflon coating,” it was an
“innovative solution” for its time158 (Ladstaetter & Zabrana 2014:235). The
shelter not only enabled greater visitor access, once it was opened to the public
in 2006159, but also allowed for enhanced conditions to carry out conservation
work on the buildings, which has been continuing ever since160. In the 2010s,
the wall paintings and marble decorations have been the foci of two separate
projects. More recently, the Terrace House 1 has been the subject of a new wall
consolidation project (Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:74).
Figure 3.3 Terrace House 2 before excavations (left); upper housing units (cover structure
completed in 1985) and the temporary eternit shelters (right) (Krinzinger 2000b:47, 125)
competition (Hueber 1992:40), whose design involved a turfed roof, was not built (Bammer
2010:51).
158 The official opening of the shelter took place on the 25th June 2000 with the participation
of the Minister of Culture İstemihan Talay and his Austrian counterpart (Krinzinger 2002:127).
159 The building could be opened to the public following the construction of visitor paths,
financed by MoCT.
160 For a synopsis of conservation works at the Terrace House 2 involving wall paintings and
the Marble Hall see Ladstaetter (2016:546–548).
97
Figure 3.4 Existing shelter (Arsinoe, Wikimedia Commons); visitor paths (the author 2011)
Subsequent to the MoC’s request, the theatre has been the subject of one of the
major conservation efforts for the last two decades161. The building had
received fragmentary conservation treatments in previous years and its use as
a cultural venue had caused further deterioration (Ladstaetter 2016:546). The
objective was to reach a balance in terms of archaeology, conservation and re-
use (Krinzinger 2006a:95), which required factoring in these issues along with
the MoC’s intention for its continued use. Key decisions were taken to
consolidate the building rather than carry out intensive reconstructions and to
implement the project in phases so as to allow its use while conservation work
progressed. Actual conservation work was preceded by detailed investigations:
the study of the scaenae frons began in the late 1990s and involved its
documentation, architectural analysis (Krinzinger 2007:228) followed by
archaeological investigations concerning the whole building. The overall
conservation project, supplemented by specific sub-projects, was prepared in
accordance with international conservation guidelines (Ladstaetter 2012:70–
71), which included the following principles (Koder & Ladstaetter 2011:287):
161 In the early years of concentration on the theatre, while urgent repairs and consolidations
were carried out, the team contended that its re-use would require an extensive project, and
therefore collaborated with Mimar Sinan University and acquired external funding (Karwiese
1996:479–480). This became a three-year (1996-99) building research and archaeological
investigation project funded by EUREKA, a “publicly-funded, intergovernmental network”
supporting innovative projects (EUREKA n.d.b, n.d.a).
98
• Conservation interventions should focus on remedying harming
factors while preserving historic information
• New materials should be reversible and harmonious with original
building techniques
• The visual integrity of the building should be preserved at all times
The project involved simple repairs, consolidation, and structural supports as
well as ensuring public safety, and directing visitor flow, and has been carried
out in phases from the early 2010s onwards (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5 Plan depicting conservation interventions (Koder & Ladstaetter 2011:295)
While a number of architectural conservation projects have been carried out in
the past decades, including at the Hadrian’s Gate, Octagon building, and St
Paul’s cave, teams have also concentrated on site-scale conservation measures.
One of the noteworthy projects, for example, was carried out in the early 2000s
to consolidate the slopes on either side of the Curetes Street and accomplished
by the construction of dry walls to prevent further erosion (Krinzinger
2007:224).
During the late 2000s and early 2010s the emphasis shifted to site maintenance
and revisiting previous conservation interventions. Excavated building
remains that had been exposed to the elements over the past century were
99
consolidated to prevent substantial costly interventions that would have been
required if no further actions had been taken (Ladstaetter 2016:542).
Maintenance efforts primarily centred along visitor routes to consolidate
damaged buildings (Koder & Ladstaetter 2010:329, 2011:288; Ladstaetter
2012:77–78) but the intention has been to treat other unkempt buildings
(Ladstaetter 2016:541–542). Conservation efforts also focused on monitoring
earlier conservation projects and remedying erroneous or failing interventions,
such as concrete cappings and earlier anastylosis projects: cappings are being
replaced with lime mortar in several buildings while the Temple of Hadrian
was the subject of a major re-anastylosis project (Österreichisches
Archaeologisches Institut n.d.a; Ladstaetter 2016:544–545).
Management planning
In 2000, a preliminary study for a management plan was prepared by the
Austrian Institute for Spatial Planning (Institut für Touristische
Raumplanung), which, taking into consideration tourism pressures,
recommended “an organizational and managerial structure” that balanced
archaeological research with tourism (Öz 2002:91–92). Towards the mid-
2000s, WMF supported the preparation of a management plan after the site
was included into the 2004 World Monuments Watch (World Monuments
Fund 2015c).
Preparations for the existing management plan began in the late 2000s, and
Selçuk Municipality supervised the process as required in the legislation
according to a protocol signed with MoCT in 2010 (Egeplan 2013:6). The
following year a site manager was appointed (the director of the Ephesos
Museum), and an advisory board as well as a coordination and supervision
board were formed. Stakeholder meetings took place the same year. The
management plan was completed in 2013 by a city planning office based in
Ankara (Egeplan) (revised in 2015) and covered the years 2014-19. The draft
plan formed part of the WHS nomination dossier (Ministry of Culture and
100
Tourism 2013). The plan defines eight categories of actions: organisation and
financial planning, conservation, management planning, visitor planning,
transportation-circulation, risk-crisis management, site promotion, education
and awareness-raising. The conservation action plan includes various future
projects, including the completion of conservation projects at the Terrace
House 2, photogrammetric survey of Ephesos’ environs, consolidation and
conservation at Church of St. Mary (Egeplan 2013:63–65), and also the
creation of a GIS-based, user-friendly database, as well as an oral history
project (in collaboration with the Ayasuluk Excavation Directorate) (Egeplan
2013:65–66).
Conservation staff
Ephesos attracts a variety of experts from a large number of disciplines. In
terms of conservation practices, architectural conservation has been part of the
excavation programmes since the 1950s, and projects were carried out by
architects who were members of the excavation team. Since then, depending
on the scale and nature of the projects, they are carried either in-house or with
external support. For example, the Temple of Hadrian, Nymphaeum of Trajan,
and the Memnius Building were carried out by team members, while
collaboration was sought at the theatre, where Turkish conservation experts
from various institutions participated including A. Öztürk (ITU), and Nevin
Esin Tekin (EskiYeni). Another example of multinational collaboration is the
wall painting conservation at the Terrace House 2.
The earlier shelter covering Terrace House 2 was a student project of an
excavation team member, which was further developed (Bammer 2010:49),
while the present shelter was outsourced through a closed competition162.
162 The competition process involved the creation of a Terrace House Commission, consisting
of the representatives of the Turkish Republic, Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry
of Science and Traffice, and also included the Society of the Friends of Ephesos representing
101
Some large-scale conservation work, with potential major impacts on the site,
can be guided by commissions to ensure international conservation principles
are followed. For example, an international commission was set up at the
Austrian Academy of Sciences in 2000 to guide conservation interventions at
the theatre according to the principles of the Segesta Declaration (1996)
(Krinzinger 2002:130; Krinzinger 2003:494). The commission consisted of
representatives of MoCT, the Austrian Ministry for Education, Science and
Culture, the Austrian Academy of Sciences and OeAI, joined by experts (F.
D´Andria, H.P. Isler and D. Mertens) (Krinzinger 2007:230).
More recently, one of the goals has been to form a site monitoring and
maintenance team to check the site periodically throughout the year to observe
problem areas and act where necessary. Such a system has been in place since
the late 2000s and a team of four does the monitoring (Österreichisches
Archaeologisches Institut n.d.b). Also, for the Terrace House 2, experienced
workmen have been trained to carry out year-round monitoring and emergency
repairs under the supervision of conservators (Ladstaetter 2016:548).
Funding
Archaeological research is primarily funded by the OeAI and the Austrian
Academy of Sciences –they can also support phases of conservation work.
Architectural conservation, including anastylosis projects, shelters, fabric
conservation etc. benefited from a variety of external funding sources ranging
from private companies to friends’ societies (whose benefactors are mostly
private individuals or corporations) and non-profit organisations, such as J.M.
Kaplan Fund. MoCT and the local authority have contributed to some of the
architectural conservation projects.
the sponsors (Krinzinger 2000b:138). Project specifications were drawn by a multinational
expert group.
102
Architectural conservation work at Ephesos enjoys the support of a number of
dedicated organisations, such as The American Society of Ephesus (George B.
Quatman Foundation), The Ephesus Foundation, Inc. (USA), the Society of
the Friends of Ephesos (Gesellschaft der Freunde von Ephesos), and the
Ephesus Foundation (Turkey). Established in 1955 and 2007 respectively, the
first two specifically support conservation of Christian monuments, while the
latter two, founded in 1972 and 2010 respectively, have no such limitations.
The American Society of Ephesus and the Ephesus Foundation, Inc. (USA)
have supported the conservation of Basilica of St. John, Church of St. Mary,
and Yedi Uyurlar among others. The Society of the Friends of Ephesos, on the
other hand, supported a number of high profile conservation projects including
the Library of Celsus and the new shelter covering Terrace House 2 (Koder &
Ladstaetter 2010:328). The Ephesus Foundation (Turkey) has been supporting
primarily the wall painting conservation at the Terrace House 2. The Turkish
company Borusan has been financing conservation work at the Marble Hall
inside the Terrace House 2 since the late 2000s.
The funding of the shelters of Terrace House 2, the conservation of the theatre,
and the re-anastylosis of the Temple of Hadrian are examples that demonstrate
the range of support. The earlier concrete shelter covering Terrace House 2
was financed by the construction company Hochtief (Bammer 2010:45), while
the new shelter was implemented through Austrian private funding (14 banks
or companies) under the leadership of the Society of the Friends of Ephesos.
MoCT financed the construction of visitor paths. The conservation of the
theatre, including archaeological and architectural research, was financed by
the OeAI, the Ephesus Foundation, Society of the Friends of Ephesos, Austrian
Academy of Sciences and TÜRSAB (Ministry of Culture and Tourism
2013:75). Selçuk Municipality contributed to the funding of a study on the re-
use of the theatre in 2005. J. M. Kaplan Fund and OeAI jointly funded the re-
anastylosis of the Temple of Hadrian.
103
The existing management plan was financed by MoCT, while an earlier phase
in the 2000s was supported by WMF (World Monuments Fund 2015c).
Community engagement
The inhabitants of Selçuk can be considered as the local community of Ephesos
but to date there has been no specific projects to engage them, beyond
excavation work. The major focus of the excavations are the visitors, which
amount to several million each year. The project website is hosted by the
OeAI163, where it is possible to get information (in German and English) on a
variety of subjects, including but not limited to the history of archaeological
research at Ephesos, conservation projects, site consolidation, and funding
sources.
3.2 Belgium
3.2.1 Sagalassos
Sagalassos is situated in the Ağlasun district of Isparta. Archaeological
excavations began in 1990 under the direction of Marc Waelkens from the
Catholic University in Leuven. Jeroen Poblome, of the same university, has
been the director since 2014. Marc Waelkens employed “interdisciplinarity164,
instead of a monument or object-oriented approach in Classical archaeology”
(Waelkens 2006:349), which also manifested itself in conversation work since
the early days of the excavations.
The site’s extremely well-preserved architectural remains and natural setting
(Figure 3.6) posed opportunities and challenges for the team in terms of
conserving and presenting the site (Waelkens, Ercan & Torun 2006:67). To
that extent, conservation efforts focused primarily on anastylosis projects, as
163 The separate website of the OeAI has since been integrated into the Austrian Academy of
Sciences and can be accessed at https://www.oeaw.ac.at/oeai/home/.
164 For the impacts of the interdisciplinary approach at Sagalassos on the formation and
development of another archaeological project in Turkey see Erciyas (2013).
104
well as other conservation measures on exposed building surfaces (repointing,
capping etc.) and treatments of mosaics, wall plasters, wall paintings.
Figure 3.6 Site plan (Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project)
In 2005, a new architectural conservation methodology was developed that
took into consideration not only issues related with exposed building remains
but also the breadth of new excavations that continued to reveal further
remains, which resulted in the creation of a “renewable and sustainable
analysis, intervention and documentation methodology that could be employed
independently from the team and specialists” (Waelkens & et. al. 2012:249,
252).
From the late 2000s onwards, the excavation gradually adopted a new
approach that incorporated a ‘cultural heritage management’ philosophy
(Torun & Ceylan 2013:14–15; Torun et al. 2014:157–158) and designed a new
framework that sought regional development, which led to a number of
community projects and altered the general structure of the excavation.
105
Site conservation
The team has so far completed four major anastylosis projects and a shelter
project, alongside routine conservation interventions to exposed remains.
Anastylosis projects began with the Late Hellenistic Fountain House where
works were completed in 1997. In 1995, a permanent protective shelter was
constructed over the Neon Library, in a way that mimicked the profile of the
mound prior to excavations, and was covered with earth and plants so that it
blended into the landscape (Figure 3.7) (Waelkens et al. 1999:297).
Figure 3.7 Neon Library (the author 2012)
The anastylosis of the Antonine Nymphaeum continued for 13 seasons (1998-
2010), and was carried out in four phases that involved joining of original
fragments of the building, new production of missing blocks, construction of
the building, structural consolidation against earthquakes and its reuse as a
fountain165 (Waelkens 2004:222–223; Waelkens et al. 2006:75; Waelkens &
et. al. 2012:253–254). Concurrent with the Nymphaeum, anastylosis work
continued at the Northwest Heroon (1998-2009) (Figure 3.8) (Waelkens & et.
al. 2011:274–275).
165 The opening of the building was celebrated with a ceremony on the 28th August 2010
(Waelkens & et. al. 2012:253–254).
106
Figure 3.8 The Antonine Nymphaeum (left) and the Northwest Heroon (right) (the author
2012)
After the completion of Antonine Nymphaeum, the Upper Agora, the political
centre of the city, became the new focus, and restorations in this area began in
2010, with the anastylosis of the Arch of Claudius (completed in 2013) and the
Northwest Gate, Northwest Honorific Column, Southeast Gate (on-going).
The aim was to re-erect honorific columns, monumental gateways, buildings,
porticoes and sculpture bases of this part of the town as part of its urban square
and to better reflect Sagalassos’ history (Waelkens & et. al. 2013:149,
2014:253; Poblome et al. 2016:96). Parallel to the works in the Upper Agora,
a new project began in the theatre in 2011 that involved its documentation and
condition survey, to form the basis of a conservation project (Figure 3.9) (Göze
Üner Architects).
Figure 3.9 Documentation of the theatre (Göze Üner Architects)
107
A new project is underway in the Roman Baths, that involves building
documentation, condition survey, and some non-invasive investigations to
conserve the exposed walls of the west wing (Global Heritage Fund).
Site-scale conservation interventions for the most part focus on repointing, as
well as capping and structural consolidation to counteract the large number of
freeze-thaw cycles and loss of mortar in the exposed buildings, which are two
of the major factors that impact building deterioration at Sagalassos (Waelkens
& et. al. 2012:249). The causes of deterioration and the state of preservation of
the buildings made it crucial for the conservation team to develop an
appropriate ‘conservation mortar’ that could be used in the restorations
(Waelkens & et. al. 2012:250–251). The developed mortar has been applied on
the remains since 2005 and has proven to be successful (Torun pers. comm.
2012).
Site presentation
Site presentation efforts gained momentum in the early 2000s when, as part of
the European Epoch Project, an ‘augmented reality’ project was initiated
whereby visitors would be able to view the site using special glasses through
which they could see reconstructed 3D images of buildings166 (Waelkens et al.
2006:68). From the early 2010s onwards, emphasis turned towards designing
visitor routes and facilities. In 2010, three visitor routes were developed based
on the time it would take to visit the site (1-2hrs, 2-3hrs and 4-5hrs)167 (Figure
3.10).
166 One example was the Antonine Nymphaeum. For further information, see P. Mueller, T.
Vereenooghe, M. Vergauwen, L. Van Gool and M. Waelkens, “Photo-Realistic and Detailed
3D Modeling: The Antonine Nymphaeum at Sagalassos (Turkey)”, Computer Applications
and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA2004): Beyond the artifact – Digital
interpretation of the past, April 2004.
167 The shortest route enables visitors to see, among others, the most prominent buildings re-
erected after anastylosis, such as the Nymphaeum, Heroon, and the buildings in the Upper
108
Figure 3.10 Visitor routes A, B and C (Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project)
As part of the development agency-funded project (see Community
engagement below), a visitor route was defined that comprised not only the
archaeological edifices but also areas of production in the vicinity such as the
quarries as well as significant features in the landscape, all highlighted via
trilingual information panels containing QR codes (Degryse et al. 2009:102;
Torun et al. 2014:160).
In 2013, a visitor centre was designed (Figure 3.11), immediately to the south
of the existing entrance, east of the Roman Baths. The construction of the
building, which makes use of the topography to house a seminar hall, café,
shop, and viewing terraces (Torun et al. 2014:161), was completed in 2015.
Figure 3.11 Visitor centre at Sagalassos (Göze Üner Architects)
Agora, while the longest route, comprising the entire site, engages tourists with the periphery,
and less visited parts of the site, including the potters’ quarters in the east.
109
Conservation staff
As mentioned above, conservation has been part of the excavations at
Sagalassos since the early days of the project, albeit in varying composition
and team structure. Initially, there was a small conservation team, working
mainly on anastylosis projects as well as carrying out urgent interventions
(Torun pers. comm. 2012). Gradually, a holistic perspective was developed
with specialised teams working on different aspects of conservation under a
site director168. The new team structure aims for continuity, and newcomers
are trained by existing team members as well as by outsourced companies. A
new system has been in place for architectural conservation since 2005 that
involves separate outsourced teams (Torun pers. comm. 2012) that carry out:
• Architectural documentation
• Documentation for architectural conservation
• Anastylosis169
Other than these teams, there is a site conservation team consisting of at least
two architects staying the entire duration of the season, working with
stonemasons and workers. Designs of new buildings for site presentation
purposes are developed with the in-house team in collaboration with
outsourced companies –as in the case of the visitor centre, which was jointly
designed by Ebru Torun with Göze Üner Architects. Landscape architects from
Belgium previously worked to design visitor routes in keeping with the setting
(Waelkens 2006:342).
168 Ebru Torun has been the leading expert guiding architectural conservation and
documentation work since 2005.
169 There were different teams for different anastylosis projects (mainly due to different
sponsors) (Torun pers. comm. 2012). The teams were directed by the architect Ebru Torun and
civil engineer Semih Ercan –both alumni of the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for
Conservation (RLICC) in Belgium.
110
Artefact conservation has been supervised and carried out by various
conservators over the years, including conservators Emine Koçak, Nerina de
Silva, and Hande Kökten, who work on frescoes, skeletons, metal etc. as well
as emergency interventions and backlog (Waelkens et al. 2006:68; Torun pers.
comm. 2012). Community engagement projects were prepared primarily by E.
Torun in collaboration with several other experts, including D. Shoup.
Funding
Conservation projects have been mainly funded by Belgian banks (such as
KBC Bank, Artesia Banking Corporation), companies (such as Group Arco,
Renier Natuursteen, Aygaz), family funds (such as L. Baert-Hofman Fund),
private individuals, and more recently by Global Heritage Fund (GHF), as well
as the World Bank and a Turkish development agency170. Almost all of the
architectural conservation work (anastylosis, shelters etc.) were privately
funded. For example, the anastylosis project of the Antonine Nymphaeum,
which, over its 13 years of duration acquired a number of sponsors, was funded
primarily by Belgians, including the L. Baert-Hofman Fund, KBC Bank,
joined later by Renier Natuursteen, Louis Lamberts-Van Assche and his
family, and the Koç affiliate Aygaz company (Waelkens n.d.a), the first
Turkish company to support Sagalassos. GHF is supporting the recent
conservation project in the Roman Baths.
Community engagement and heritage management projects have been
financed through project grants received from the World Bank (for the Sagala-
sun Project – see below), and the Western Mediterranean Development
170 There is insufficient information on the Sagalassos Foundation and Friends of Sagalassos
to judge the type of projects they support. The Sagalassos Foundation was founded in 2014 by
Turkish nationals and its executive board consists of national and local entrepreneurs as well
as members of the Sagalassos team. Friends of Sagalassos appears to have been in existence
since the early years of excavations.
111
Agency together with the Leuven University’s Research Council Fund (for the
sustainable tourism project).
Community engagement
Years of practice at Sagalassos led to a number of specially trained local
workers that carried out anastylosis work. In the early days, however, until the
late 2000s, experienced stonemasons had to be recruited from Cappadocia, but
over the process of several anastylosis projects, this ceased to be a necessity
(Waelkens n.d.). The anastylosis of the Late Hellenistic Fountain House in the
1990s was a case study on anastylosis for the conservation team and served as
a training ground for the architects and engineers involved, and also enabled
the development of specialized workers who would then continue with similar
projects at the site (Waelkens 2006:329–330). In addition to training locals in
stonemasonry, the team also informed workers on what the archaeological
excavations revealed and gave tours of the site at the end of each season
(Waelkens et al. 2006:68).
Other than worker trainings, the team carried out several community-related
projects since the late 2000s. The Sagalassos Public Archaeology Project was
initiated in 2008, and involved identification of and meetings with
stakeholders, and collating their views, values, visions, expectations regarding
the site (Torun et al. 2014:158–159). This led to the Sagala-sun Project
(Protection and Sustainable Use of Resources: Future for Youth in Rural
Areas), which was awarded a grant by the World Bank’s Development
Marketplace Competition in 2009. The project focused on the young
population in Ağlasun and aimed at engaging young people in the
archaeological site by introducing them to the work carried out and discovering
ways in which archaeological research could benefit the local community171.
171 Some of the major outcomes were increased numbers of people wishing to operate their
homes as guesthouses, the opening of the first visitor centre in Ağlasun, and the establishment
112
Another project was the result of a collaboration between the Sagalassos team
and the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, as their joint-application received
funding from the West Mediterranean Development Agency for “Development
and Promotion of Cultural and Natural Resources of Ağlasun for Sustainable
Tourism Use” in 2011 (Torun et al. 2014:160). This 8-month project, co-
funded by Leuven University, concentrated on identifying alternative tourism
opportunities, and aided the local government and local entrepreneurs in better
presenting local cultural heritage to visitors172. The project also aimed to create
a ‘heritage management platform’ consisting of the stakeholders in order to
provide its sustainability (Torun et al. 2014:161).
The Sagalassos Project’s website (www.sagalassos.be) (Figure 3.12) contains
information about staff, various scientific projects as well as photographs of
monuments and various maps of the site.
Figure 3.12 Sagalassos Project’s website (left), Sagalassos-Ağlasun website (right)
The entries are mostly in Flemish, with occasional Turkish and English
content. The Ağlasun-Sagalassos website (www.tursaga.com), on the other
hand, has information on where to stay and what to do while staying in this
area, and besides providing access to useful guidebooks (in pdf format),
of a new department on cultural heritage and tourism at the local vocational school (part of the
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University) (Torun et al. 2014:159-160).
172 The process included designation of visitor routes within Ağlasun, trekking routes within
the natural landscape, support for local accommodation opportunities, opening of a tourism
information office and a new visitor centre, publication of a guidebook on Ağlasun-Sagalassos,
and development of a new website (www.tursaga.com).
113
visitors can also catch a glimpse of the archaeological and conservation work
carried out at Sagalassos through films recorded with team members.
3.3 France
3.3.1 Labraunda
Labraunda is located in the Milas district of Muğla, near the village of
Kargıcak. The site is a sanctuary with a temple and associated buildings, and
other structures outside the sanctuary, including a stadion, acropolis, fortresses
(Labraunda.org) (Figure 3.13). The buildings are primarily of ashlar masonry.
Labraunda has been investigated and excavated intermittently since 1948 by
Swedish scholars. Axel W. Persson, Uppsala University, was the director
between 1948 and 1951, succeeded by Gösta Säflund who directed the
excavation until 1953. The final campaign of this period took place in 1960
under the direction of Alfred Westholm, director of the Gothenburg Art
Museum. A new phase of research began in 1987 (after three seasons of
research in 1979, 1983 and 1985 led by P. Hellström, Uppsala University)
(Hellström 1990) and continued until 1993. After a nine-year hiatus, work
resumed once again under the direction of Hellström, and from 2002 onwards
under Lars Karlsson, Uppsala University, who continued as director until 2012.
The current excavations are led by the French-Turkish archaeologist Olivier
Can Henry, based at the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris.
Conservation activities173 during 1987-1993 focused on architectural
documentation, preparation of a site plan, structural consolidation of Andron
A, and a landscape design for the site, which involved architectural repairs as
well as construction of a new path to provide better access to the Propylon
(Hellström 1993:127). With the new phase of excavation in 2002, the program
focused more on “… the documentation and inventorying of ancient remains
173 Information on conservation work at Labraunda came from the ERM reports, and from the
very detailed annual reports, written in English, and made available on the project website
(www.labraunda.org/Labraunda.org/Annual_reports_eng.html).
114
in the immediate surroundings of the Labraunda sanctuary …” and
“…improving the visitability to the site and the preparing of a program for
preservation and heritage management.” (Karlsson 2006:101).
Figure 3.13 Site plan (Hellström 1991:298)
Site conservation
Various small-scale conservation work has been carried out since the mid-
2000s, including the restoration of the monumental staircase leading to the
sanctuary (Karlsson 2007:68), consolidation and partial rebuilding of the South
Thermae (Karlsson 2008a:130), and construction of a metal roof over the
Tetraconch (the Roman baths) (Karlsson 2010b:32).
As part of the new project focus, set in motion in 2002, the vicinity of the
sanctuary was mapped by a local company from Milas during the 2005 season
(Karlsson 2007:67). Using GPS and Total Station, work on a new
topographical map and a 3D model of the site as well as resurveying the
geographical locations of the monuments began in 2012 and continued in 2014
(Henry et al. 2015:309–310).
115
Andron A, as the most striking architectural feature of the sanctuary, was a
focal point for archaeological research but also created a conservation problem
for the team. Its visible structural and material problems were causes for
concern, and various specialists became involved in various phases of its
documentation and conservation. In 2004, a detailed 3D survey of the building
was carried out by a Swedish engineering company to support subsequent
conservation work (Karlsson 2006:103). Two Swedish engineers prepared a
restoration project for the building, which proposed different ways of
consolidating the southern wall (Karlsson 2008a:130). Projects on the
consolidation of Andron A continued to be a focus in the early 2010s. In 2010,
an architect from Stockholm (C. Kanra) worked on the consolidation in
collaboration with a construction company from Bodrum (Karlsson, Blid &
Henry 2011).
A new project for Andron A began in 2011, in partnership with a team from
METU under the direction of Güliz Bilgin Altınöz (Karlsson, Blid & Henry
2012:80). A protocol signed between IFEA and METU identified the necessary
tasks (Henry et al. 2013:312):
…research, documentation, analytical and laboratory studies, survey,
restitution and restoration projects and reports, as well as the technical
documents for the implementation phase and the monitoring and
control program after the implementations for Andron A …
The project was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team consisting of
specialists and graduate students from METU and the archaeological team, and
completed in 2013 (Figure 3.14). The holistic approach, integrating
“architectural, geological, material, structural and contextual parameters” and
interpreting the building within its physical and historical context, involved
remedies in line with international principles that promulgate “minimum
intervention, reversibility, re-treatability, sustainability, authenticity, spirit of
place, integrity, safety and stability” (Henry et al. 2014:257–259). The project
116
team also recommended the preparation of a conservation and management
plan to address the wider conservation requirements.
Figure 3.14 Visual mapping of weathering and structural problems by METU (Henry et al.
2014:258)
Also in the early 2010s, A. Freccero, an Italian conservator from The Swedish
Institute in Rome, was invited to initiate a long-term marble conservation
project, including cleaning and consolidation, of the architectural blocks that
had been lying exposed for decades (Karlsson et al. 2011:19). A holistic
approach was promoted (Freccero 2012:42):
Conservation at an archaeological site such as Labraunda should be
regarded as a total environment evaluation rather than the study of
singular items. The need for conservation interventions is urgent.
Consolidation of the fragments is necessary to preserve not only the
sculpted, finely cut details, but also to preserve the surface of larger
forms.
The marble conservation project continued in 2014 under the direction of
Freccero’s assistant (Henry et al. 2015:304). A mortar conservation
programme has been continuing since 2012 as part of which a conservator
intervenes where urgent work and consolidation are required (Henry et al.
2014:305).
117
Site presentation
Making the site more accessible and presentable to visitors was one of the aims
of the new excavations that began in 2002. Preparation of information panels,
creation of a visitor route, clearance of the backfill of older excavation periods
and scattered architectural blocks, and various site security measures (entrance
gate and perimeter fences) are some of the interventions (Karlsson 2007:68,
2009:111–112; Henry et al. 2014:263; Henry et al. 2015:390).
In 2012, following requests from MoCT, the team engaged in further work to
improve “visitor access, security and presentation of the site", including the
demolition of an old shepherd’s house (empty since the first Swedish
excavations in the 1950s) to enable a more comfortable access to the Temple,
fencing of the western part of the site to prevent animals from entering, and
installation of more information panels (Henry et al. 2013:350–351). Works
also included moving stone blocks to ease visitor access, as required by MoCT
(Henry et al. 2015:389). In 2014, a graduate student from METU began
research on deciphering the meaning and values of the site and developing
specific narratives to contribute to the overall presentation (Henry et al.
2015:390–391).
Conservation staff
Documentation of architectural remains has mostly been carried out by
architects/graduate students from Swedish and Turkish universities unless the
project required more advanced technical equipment, such as 3D surveys.
Especially since 2010, with conservation gaining more urgency and
importance, Turkish and international specialists and/or architects from METU
and The Swedish Institute in Rome have been invited to the site to address
certain problematic issues. The abovementioned marble conservation
programme and the conservation of Andron A are such projects. A continuous
team is emerging with the marble conservator and another conservator who
deals with mortars and small objects.
118
Funding
The new phase of excavations that began in 2002 continued as a Swedish
concern until 2012, when it became a French (IFEA)-funded project. The ERM
reports and the project website (www.labraunda.org) list a number of
organizations that have supported archaeological work at Labraunda over the
years: various foundations at the University of Uppsala (Ake Wiberg’s
Foundation, Magn. Bergvall’s Foundation, Gunvor and Josef Anér’s
Foundation, Helge Ax:son Johnson’s Foundation and E. Hellgren’s
Foundation for the Maintenance of the Cultural and Natural Heritage), the
Labranda Society in Sweden, The Friends of the Swedish Institute in Rome,
the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, the French
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, IFEA, Eczacıbaşı,
and more recently the J.M. Kaplan Fund.
In terms of projects related with conservation, the Andron A project received
funding from the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities
in the 2000s, and subsequently the J.M. Kaplan Fund for the conservation
project carried out in partnership with METU (Karlsson et al. 2012:80). The
Uppsala University’s Hellgren’s Foundation for the Maintenance of the
Cultural and Natural Heritage has funded the restoration of two shepherd huts
in the site (Karlsson 2008b:267).
Community engagement
There is no information regarding any project or undertaking in relation to
local communities. There is mention, however, of a photographic exhibition
that took place in Milas in May 2013 (Henry et al. 2014:263). The project has
a website (www.labraunda.org) in Turkish and English and provides ample
information about the excavation background, team members and annual
reports.
119
3.4 Germany
3.4.1 Doliche
Doliche/Dülük Baba Tepesi is located in the centre of Gaziantep and consists
of masonry buildings of the Jupiter Dolichenus Sanctuary and an ancient
settlement with continuous religious significance (Figure 3.15). The site was
first documented in 1907 but remained unresearched until the 1970s, when J.
Wagner began excavating the ancient city and the sanctuary (Doliche Project
n.d.a). At first archaeological work began as a ‘museum excavation’ in 2001,
under the successive directions of Fatma Bulgan and Hamza Güllüce from the
Gaziantep Museum in collaboration with the Forschungsstelle Asia Minor of
the Westfalische Wilhems-University of Münster in Germany. In 2007, the
project became an excavation permitted by the Ministerial Cabinet, and has
since been led by archaeologist Engelbert Winter of the University of Münster.
Figure 3.15 Jupiter Dolichenus Sanctuary – Dülük Baba Tepesi (Blömer & Winter 2015:54)
Site conservation
Information about conservation work174 at Doliche appears in the ERM reports
in the early 2010s. There is not much information about specific
174 There is mention of an architectural conservator (in the 2005 season); however, no
information is provided regarding any related work. More detailed information about
120
documentation projects; however, in 2012, S. Haps, from the Faculty of
Architecture and Engineering at the Technical University of Dortmund, carried
out documentation that involved surveying previously undocumented areas
and correcting errors in earlier drawings of the site (Blömer&Winter 2014:
203). Priorities in this period were to test new survey technologies to ascertain
less time consuming and more economic methods. For example, a
quadrocopter was tested in collaboration with the Institute for Geoinformatics
at the University of Münster, which enabled 3D images of the surveyed areas
(Blömer&Winter 2014: 203).
In the early 2010s the excavation director aimed to make the site accessible to
visitors and engaged conservation architect Maruchi Yoshida from Germany
to carry out a condition survey, which involved documentation, damage and
risk assessments, preparation of a strategic plan for emergency measures, and
maintenance programmes, as well as the formation of an interdisciplinary team
for conservation (Aliyev, Gasimova & Yoshida 2011; Yoshida & Winter
2012:271).
In 2012, the major focus was on conservation interventions. A ‘long-term
conservation concept’ was finalized based on the damage assessment, under
the supervision of Yoshida, the main aim of which was the conservation of the
calcareous stone material that was used abundantly at the site, as well as the
consolidation of architectural remains (Blömer & Winter 2014:201). The main
conservation approach was defined as follows (Yoshida & Winter 2012:271):
All covering and backing measures should be minimally invasive and
reversible. Generally a low-tech preventive conservation strategy may
be the most feasible and reliable protection method. As preventive
conservation implies holistic approaches without direct intervention
conservation comes from articles written by the site conservator M. Yoshida published
elsewhere and the project website (www.doliche.de).
121
into original substance this concept will maintain all possibilities open
for future conservation treatments.
Consolidation measures were taken at the site where buildings required
attention due to problems caused by climatic conditions and the characteristics
of the stone building material in the sanctuary (Figure 3.16). Another project
in 2012 was the design of two shelters: one to cover the excavated area, the
other to cover a group of architectural blocks situated next to the excavated
areas. The first shelter was designed by a German architect Haps175 in
collaboration with the excavation team, architects and the local museum
(Blömer & Winter 2014:202). The second one was a simple inclined roof to
protect the stones, also designed by Haps.
Figure 3.16 Consolidation measures (the author 2012); shelter for the stone blocks (Blömer &
Winter 2014:207)
Preliminary mortar and stone conservation work also took place. Samples were
taken to decide on an appropriate conservation mortar, and in the meantime,
geotextile covers and consolidation with timber were used. In 2013, a stone
conservator from the University of Oxford carried out various tests on the
stones. Conservation work was carried out at two different locations by two
175 Based at the Faculty of Architecture and Engineering at the Technical University of
Dortmund, she had been involved in a joint project with the Forschungsstelle Asia Minor for
the research of the Roman phase of the Temenos area.
122
different groups on the Hellenistic-Roman foundations and the medieval
monastery to consolidate cracks and gaps (Doliche Project n.d.d).
Site presentation
A “Touristic Development Project” was prepared in 2011 according to which
in 2012, a 400m long visitor route was created, consisting of six stations, at
which trilingual information panels were installed (Blömer&Winter 2014:202-
203). A wider-scope intention is to connect all religious sanctuaries in
Gaziantep and the Jupiter Dolichenus Sanctuary.
Conservation staff
A German survey office (Ralf Wirtz) has been part of the project since 1999
(Doliche Project n.d.c). Some of the team members are responsible for the
documentation of excavated trenches, and two German conservators work on
artefact conservation (Doliche Project n.d.b; Mona Lisl Restaurierung
München n.d.). Architectural conservation was supervised in 2010-13 by M.
Yoshida, a German heritage consultant, who acted as the site conservator
(Yoshida Conservation n.d.). The team has collaborated with other
universities, such as Dortmund and Oxford, for site documentation and stone
conservation.
Funding
The project received funding mostly from the German Research Foundation
(DFG - Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft) and secured their continued
support once again in 2012 (Blömer & Winter 2014:204), a small portion of
which can be allocated to conservation work. The Historical and
Archaeological Society in Münster, founded by F.K. Dörner, with their interest
in the Commagene region, is one of the supporters. The Zirve University in
Gaziantep agreed to fund both excavation and conservation work from 2012-
2015, an arrangement that involves only financial support, so it does not entail
contribution of specialists.
123
Community engagement
There are no identified projects that focus on community involvement. There
is a regularly updated website (www.doliche.de) in Turkish and German,
which provides information about previous research, latest developments,
team members as well as the Commagene region as a whole (Figure 3.17).
Figure 3.17. Website of the Doliche Project
3.4.2 Göbekli Tepe
The site is located 15km northeast of Şanlıurfa, close to the village of Örencik.
It was first noticed during the joint south-eastern Anatolia expedition of the
universities of Istanbul and Chicago in the 1963-1972 but remained
unresearched until Klaus Schmidt visited the site in 1994 (Schmidt 2000:45–
46). Described as a ‘mountain sanctuary’ by Schmidt (2011b:919), Göbekli
Tepe is an artificial mound positioned at a dominant location overlooking an
entire landscape, and is essentially a ritual place dating to the 10th and 9th
millenia BC with no evidence of domestic activity (Figure 3.18) (Schmidt
2006:343, 2010a:239). Archaeological excavations at the site began in 1995
with the collaboration of the Museum of Şanlıurfa and DAI, and have revealed
an architecture consisting of numerous T-shaped megalithic and
anthropomorphic limestone pillars, decorated in low relief that depict animals,
124
often malicious, positioned to form circular enclosures176 (Schmidt 2006: 344-
345). Göbekli Tepe was added into the WH Tentative List in 2011. Schmidt
was the director of the excavations177 until his untimely death in 2014, after
which the directorship was transferred to the Şanlıurfa Museum Directorate.
Figure 3.18 Main excavation areas (Dietrich et al. 2014:12)
During the early years of the project, conservation work178 was limited to
simple shelter constructions to protect exposed remains from climatic
conditions, and re-erection of various limestone pillars, based on ‘minimum
intervention’ methodology. Partial re-erections were carried out only in
exceptional circumstances (DAI 2015b). 2007 was a landmark year, coinciding
176 The monuments are of two main phases: 10th millennium BC phase is more monumental,
while the 9th millennium BC remains display considerably smaller dimensions (Schmidt
2010a:239–241).
177 The project was initially under the supervision of the Şanlıurfa Museum, with Schmidt as
the scientific advisor and director at the site, but in 2007 it became an excavation permitted by
the Ministerial Cabinet.
178 There are no reports in the ERM proceedings during the first ten years of the project, but
since then, they have appeared regularly. Other preliminary reports published elsewhere were
used to construct the first decade of conservation work for the site. Otherwise, information was
gathered from articles written by team members, the project website as well as websites of
sponsors/funding bodies.
125
with the “Anatolia 12000 Years Ago” exhibition in Karlsruhe-Germany, when
visitor numbers soared, necessitating plans for site presentation (Dietrich,
Notroff & Schmidt:104; Dietrich, Notroff & Schmidt 2015:104; Köksal-
Schmidt 2016). A more refined and collaborative method was deemed
necessary to approach the increasing number of tourists and conservation of
exposed remains.
After 2010s, more holistic site conservation and presentation methodologies
were sought that involved the construction of permanent shelters and visitor
paths, which have characterised the focus of conservation work in recent years.
This period is also when work began in earnest to have the site inscribed onto
the WH List, starting with the preparations for a management plan. Bringing
on board the GHF, the excavation team initiated a site conservation programme
that aimed to (Global Heritage Fund 2012):
…support the preparation of a Site Management and Conservation
Plan, construction of a shelter over the exposed archaeological features,
training of local community members in guiding and conservation, and
assisting the Turkish government in securing UNESCO World Heritage
nomination.
3D documentation of the remains began in 2005, primarily of the T-shaped
pillars, and was used in modelling and reconstructions (Schmidt 2007:103).
More recently, the team has been creating a GIS structure that can be used to
monitor the physical condition of architectural remains (DAI 2015b).
Site conservation
The general conservation technique has been to cover the fragile pillars or
fragments in timber boxes or geo-textiles, build stone walls for protection
126
against climatic conditions, re-erect certain pillars179 (those that stood rather
precariously and posed danger for people, or those that hindered the
excavations) and, since 1999, to construct simple modular shelters to cover
trenches (Figure 3.19) (Dietrich et al. 2015:104–107; Köksal-Schmidt 2016).
Figure 3.19 Conservation work (the author 2012)
Since the 2010s, another concern has been the deterioration of mortar that filled
the gaps between the stones that make up the circular walls. As they were
exposed to the elements, their loss caused structural problems. Mortar
sampling was carried out in 2012-13 in collaboration with John Hurd, Senior
Advisor to the GHF in collaboration with Harran University (Becker et al.
2014:10; Global Heritage Fund 2015).
Temporary shelters180 had been built since the early years of the project but
gradually permanent shelters were considered appropriate to cover excavated
areas181 and also to facilitate visitor appreciation of the site. In 2011, a shelter
to cover the south-eastern excavation area was commissioned following a
design competition for which six entries were received (Dietrich et al.
2015:105; Global Heritage Fund 2015). The winning design (Figure 3.20), a
179 A group of experts devised a methodology to raise the multi-ton pillars based on tests
carried out in Germany on stone blocks of same weight and dimensions (Schmidt 2011a).
180 Although the steel truss and undulating roofs proved to be very effective in protecting the
exposed remains, difficulties arose in anchoring the columns of these shelters on the fragile
soil that separated the trenches (Dietrich, Notroff & Schmidt 2015:104).
181 MoCT also made a request to that effect.
127
steel, saddle-shaped space-frame structure covered with a membrane that spans
approximately 1800m2, fits into the landscape and aims to allow visitors to
view the site without the obstruction of columns (Figure 3.21)
(kleyer.koblitz.letzel.freivogel.architekten 2011).
Figure 3.20 View of the winning design (kleyer.koblitz.letzel.freivogel.architekten 2011)
Figure 3.21 Drawings of the shelter (EiSat 2013)
In 2013, the same group of architects and engineers designed another shelter,
this time for the north-western trenches (Figure 3.22). Spanning 2400m2, the
steel truss structure was developed according to the positions of underground
archaeological remains, the existence of which was confirmed through
geophysical surveys, and covers those, as yet, unexcavated areas (EiSat 2014).
Figure 3.22 Design of the second shelter (EiSat 2014)
128
In both designs the main goal was to produce a shelter that required minimal
foundations, carried a minimal weight and was economical. In the seasons of
2011-2013, soundings were carried out in the areas where the shelter supports
were going to go (Dietrich et al. 2015:105). Until the construction of the
permanent shelters, a temporary timber shelter covered with ‘roofing felt’
(Figure 3.23), designed by the same German group, was built over the south-
eastern excavation area, to serve as a protective layer during the construction
of the permanent shelters and also to aid its construction (Becker et al. 2014:4;
Global Heritage Fund 2014). In June 2016, MoCT announced that the site
would remain closed until the end of the year to allow for the construction of
the shelters (Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü 2016).
Figure 3.23 Temporary shelter (Dietrich et al. 2014:11)
Another intervention concerning the whole site was the installation of a 6km-
long perimeter fence covering a wider area than the 1st degree archaeological
conservation area (Becker et al. 2014:10; Global Heritage Fund 2015).
Site presentation
As Göbekli Tepe became increasingly well-known across the world,
presenting the site became one of the major concerns (Dietrich et al.
2015:104). In 2007, the team began work on visitor interpretation of the site as
part of a Neolithic cultural and natural landscape, and designed a route that not
only covered the excavated areas but also contained 27 places around the site,
including ancient quarries (Schmidt 2009:170). Excavation trenches were
129
made accessible to visitors through temporary bridges, which allowed them to
view on-going work without disturbing the archaeological layers (Schmidt
2010b:254–255). In 2011, the timber path circling the south-east excavation
area was widened, to be used not only as a visitor walkway but also to serve
practical purposes during the excavation (Figure 3.24) (Schmidt 2013:81).
MoCT built a visitor centre182 in 2013, about 800m away from the excavated
areas (Global Heritage Fund 2014; Dietrich et al. 2015:106) and landscaping
was carried out.
Figure 3.24 Visitor walkway (the author 2012)
Management planning
Preparations for a management plan began following Göbekli Tepe’s inclusion
on Turkey’s World Heritage Tentative List. The excavation team engaged the
professional consultancy of the Brandenburg University of Technology in
Cottbus183. The plan184 was submitted to MoCT in 2014 with the intention that
it would serve as a guideline for a more comprehensive management plan
182 Köksal-Schmidt notes that the visitor centre attracted much criticism and that plans were
being made for a new one (Köksal-Schmidt 2016:6).
183 The selection was made owing to the international renown of Cottbus as a centre for heritage
management and its masters programme in World Heritage Studies (Becker et al. 2014:9;
Schmidt & Merbach 2014:68).
184 The plan was prepared under the supervision of K. Rheidt, Head of Department of History
of Architecture, and L. Schmidt, Head of Department of Architectural Conservation, with two
alumnies of the World Heritage Studies programme as research assistants (A. Merbach and S.
Pant).
130
(Becker et al. 2014:9; Dietrich et al. 2015:108). The plan aimed to reflect a
holistic understanding and go beyond a ‘manual or check-list’ or ‘linear’
approach, and strived to answer delicate questions as to whether to partially
reconstruct some of the pillars or to display the ancient backfill material
(Schmidt & Merbach 2014:83–84). It defined seven strategic objectives185 for
the site, including the wider setting of Göbekli Tepe, for which policies were
developed and up to six actions were defined, outlining their priority, time
frame and responsible institutions. The management plan also proposed a
buffer zone around the archaeological conservation area (Schmidt, Merbach &
Pant 2014:12).
In addition to the management plan, preliminary works for a conservation plan
were set in motion by the GHF and Harran University in Şanlıurfa (Dietrich et
al. 2015:108), that initially involved mortar analysis at the site. GHF was also
involved in the preparation of a plan for the site to tackle issues such as Visitor
Center, Parking and Traffic Access, Community Opportunities (Global
Heritage Fund 2015).
Conservation staff
Over the years, a number of people have been involved in the conservation of
Göbekli Tepe. The first interventions regarding the re-erection of the pillars
were carried out by Helmuth Richter from the Roman Museum of Weissenburg
in Bayern; later in 2009-10 this was carried out by the architectural firm of
Eduard Knoll of Bayern (www.eduard-knoll.de) (Knoll 2009; DAI 2015b).
Various architectural blocks have been documented in 3D since 2005 by Prof.
Tilman Müller and his team of students from the Karlsruhe Technical
University, Institute of Geomatics (DAI 2015b). In 2010 and 2012, the
engineering office Christofori und Partner from Rosstal documented the
185 Site Conservation, Conservation of the Setting, Excavation and Research, Tourism
Development, Community Involvement and Development, Institutional Framework, and
Management Resources.
131
southern areas of the site (http://www.christofori.de/) (DAI 2015b). The
designs for the two permanent shelters were acquired after a competition
organised by DAI in 2011. The winning project was the collaborative work of
the architectural company Kleyer.Koblitz.Letzel.Freivogel and the
engineering firm EiSat, both from Berlin (Dietrich et al. 2015:105). As
previously mentioned, mortar analysis was carried out by the GHF in
collaboration with Harran University.
Funding
The Göbekli Tepe project is funded by the German Archaeological Institute
(DAI), the German Research Foundation (DFG) and has been supported by
various private and other organisations including Theodor Wiegand-
Gesellschaft, ArchaeNova e.V. Heidelberg, John Templeton Foundation, Koç
Foundation, Akyürek Holding186 and the Municipality of Şanlıurfa (Becker et
al. 2014:28).
The construction costs of both the permanent shelters will be borne by the EU
and the TR through the “Construction and Renovation Works for Urban
Conservation Area and Göbekli Tepe Archeological Site in Şanlıurfa
Project”187 within the scope of the “IPA Regional Competitiveness Operational
Programme in Turkey” (Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology
2014:11). Visitor facilities at the site as well as landscaping were designed and
funded by the Turkish State (Becker et al. 2014; Köksal-Schmidt 2016:6).
The temporary shelter in the south-eastern area has been funded by the GHF188,
DFG and DAI (Poortman 2013; Dietrich et al. 2015:105). The installation of
186 The company intends to sponsor the logistics of visitor facilities (Becker et al. 2014:22).
187 The project was originally intended to start in March 2016, to be completed in 23 months,
however, the tender was cancelled in January 2016 because all the proposals exceeded
available financial sources (Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology 2016).
188 In 2012, GHF received substantial financial support for Göbekli Tepe from both the Vehbi
Koç Foundation and the Kaplan Fund (Global Heritage Fund 2012).
132
the perimeter fence, completed in 2012, was funded by the J.M. Kaplan Fund
through the GHF (Poortman 2013). The preparation of the management plan
was financed by DAI and DFG (Schmidt et al. 2014:4). More recently, Doğuş
Holding pledged to give 15 million USD for the conservation of the site, in
collaboration with the National Geographic Society, for a period of 20 years
(Curry 2016).
Community engagement
In 2007, the team began their first public meeting with the locals of Örencik,
who had been involved with the project from the start. The team arranged an
archaeology conference for the village school students, and organised a trip to
the Şanlıurfa Archaeological Museum and Haleplibahçe Mosaic Excavation.
It is not clear whether these public meetings have continued, as there is no
information in the ERM proceedings or other publications, but more recently,
in collaboration with the GHF, an education program for the village children
was initiated that involved seminars in their school as well as site visits and
trips to the museum (Global Heritage Fund 2015).
The project website (http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/21890) is
hosted by the DAI and is in German and English. It provides general
information on the types of works carried out and by whom
(http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/22020).
3.4.3 Hattusha
Located in the Boğazkale district of Çorum, Hattusha/Boğazköy was
excavated first in 1906 by Hugo Winckler and Theodor Makridy on behalf of
the Imperial Museum in Istanbul (Seeher 1999:91). The two subsequent
campaigns in 1907 and 1911-12 marked the beginning of German involvement
(Hauptmann 1999:31). Current excavations, carried out by the DAI, have been
continuing since 1952, after a stint in 1931-1939 (Schachner 2013b:126;
Seeher & Schachner 2014:132), and were directed by Kurt Bittel, Peter Neve
and Jürgen Seeher successively. The current director is Andreas Schachner of
133
DAI. Hattusha has been inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1986. The site,
together with Alacahöyük forms one of Turkey’s national parks (Boğazköy-
Alacahöyük), designated in 1987 (Neve 1998:515).
Hattusha was the capital of the Hittite Kingdom and excavations have revealed
a vast city, with public and religious buildings as well as walls encircling the
entire city (Figure 3.25). Buildings were constructed of stone, wood and
mudbrick, with stones used mostly for the foundations of buildings and the city
fortifications –it was only in the latter that the walls reached a considerable
height (Seeher & Schachner 2014:132). As mudbrick deteriorates heavily
when exposed to the elements and kept unmaintained, most the buildings
revealed by excavations are only at foundation level.
Figure 3.25 Site plan of Hattusha (Schachner 2015:219)
Until the 1960s, archaeological work at focused on excavations, but with the
arrival of Neve, who was inspired by the interventions at Karatepe,
134
conservation of unearthed walls gained importance. He devised a system, still
in use today, which involves adding several courses of stone to excavated walls
(separating the new wall from the original by a layer of ‘distinguishable
material’) in order to create a protective layer against the weather and erosion,
and then backfilling the wall until about 30-40cm of it remains visible (Seeher
& Schachner 2014:134–135). Original materials are used in these restorations,
and where new materials are needed they are made with different sized stones,
treatments or recessed positioning (Neve 1991:230). Conservation activities189
usually take the form of wall restorations, temporary shelters, architectural
reconstructions as well as reconstruction of architectural decorations.
Site conservation
The earliest restorations in Hattusha were localized interventions that took
place in the 1960s at previously excavated buildings such as the Büyükkale,
the Lion’s Gate and the King’s Gate190 (Neve 1998:515). With Neve’s
directorship, conservation gradually became one of the focal points of
excavations, especially after 1978. The late 1970s saw the finalisation of
restoration at Büyükkale and parts of the Lower City, including Temple 1
(Seeher & Schachner 2014:137).
In the 1980s, conservation work continued in numerous areas around the site,
including the Hittite temples, Iron Age and Byzantine buildings, as well as the
city walls and gates. One of the major projects of the 1980s was the restoration
of Yerkapı, which involved the consolidation and rebuilding of the entire
monumental rampart (Figure 3.26). The project was completed in 1985 (Neve
189 Information regarding conservation work at Hattusha can be found in the ERM reports as
well as annual preliminary reports accessible through DAI’s website, and recent publications
that focus solely on conservation practices at the site.
190 For example, a copy of the “warrior-god” relief was installed at the King's Gate in 1967 to
replace the original that had been removed and transferred to the Ankara Museum in the 1930s
(Seeher 2012:70, 144-145; Seeher & Schachner 2014:151).
135
1987:237) but minor interventions continued through 1987 (Seeher &
Schachner 2014:140).
Figure 3.26 Yerkapı east section before and after intervention (Seeher 2012:162, 164)
In the early 1990s, the two chambers (no.1 and no.2) in the Upper City were
the focus. Considered as ‘a rare example of a successful, complete anastylosis’
(Seeher & Schachner 2014:144–145), the project concerning the latter began
when original stones were discovered re-used in a later period Phrygian wall.
After dismantling the wall, the stones were reconstructed in their original
location (Figure 3.27) (Neve 1998:519), positioning the stones with the help
of the hieroglyphs carved on them (Neve 1993:331). In the case of the first
chamber, the number of original stones meant that only a partial reconstruction
could take place (Neve 1993:331).
Figure 3.27 Chamber 2 (Hieroglyphic Chamber) (the author 2015)
In the mid-1990s, efforts continued to conserve previously excavated buildings
as well as previously restored buildings and areas. Several burned mudbrick
walls in Building E at Büyükkale, which had been exposed for 90 years, were
covered with sheets and reburied. The Byzantine church, previously restored
in 1980, was restored once again, and the heavily deteriorated copy of the
136
warrior-god relief at the King’s Gate was replaced with a concrete copy (Figure
3.28).
Figure 3.28 Replacement of the warrior-god copy (left) (Seeher 2012:191); its current
condition (right) (the author 2015)
Also in 1995, a report was prepared by Jochen Seebach, a restorer specializing
in stone, for the long-term conservation of damaged architectural remains in
the city, as well as the consolidation of loosened rocks in Yazılıkaya (Seeher
1997:328). The following year, a new mineral-based mortar he developed was
tested on four blocks of stone to fill cracks in limestones after previous
interventions failed in the harsh climatic conditions. The application was
monitored for the following 3-4 years.
In the 2000s, one of the projects involved the water pools. The edges of the
eastern ponds were consolidated using stones to recreate the original sloping
stone cladding while the southern pools, where no such walls existed, were
backfilled and their layouts replicated using bands of pebbles (Seeher 2004:13;
Seeher & Schachner 2014:142–143).
In 2009, a condition survey was carried out on previous stone restorations. The
visible cracks of Yazılıkaya, Lion Gate and the Great Temple had been filled
in the 1960s and 1970s using adhesives but they had lost their quality, leaving
the materials exposed to the elements (Schachner 2013a:299). The focus was
on architectural decorations and their reconstruction as part of “enhancing
visitor engagement” (Seeher & Schachner 2014:152). The first intervention
was carried out on the Lion’s Gate, where previous crack infills were removed
137
with a specially produced solution and then filled with mineral-based
mortar191, and the damaged head was reconstructed (Figure 3.29) (Schachner
2012:471–473). Conservation efforts continued in the Great Temple, and later
in 2012-13 copies of the two sphinxes at the Sphinx Gate were installed in their
original locations (Figure 3.30) (Seeher & Schachner 2014:153). More recently
restorations continue on the postern wall (Schachner pers. comm. 2015).
Figure 3.29 Reconstruction of the head at the Lion’s Gate (the author 2015)
Figure 3.30 Sphinx replicas at the Sphinx Gate (the author 2015)
Site presentation
Following localized interventions that started in the 1960s, a more holistic
approach was the aim of the early 1980s, in the form of creating an
‘archaeological park’ at Hattusha. To that end, the excavation funded192 the
expropriation of 700.000m2 of land in and around the site (Neve 1984:146).
191 This mortar, developed jointly by the Weimar Technical University and Thüringen
Conservation Directorate, has been used successfully in restorations in Germany for over 25
years including the World Heritage Site of Weimar (Schachner 2012:472).
192 DAI, supported by the Theodor Wiegand Gesellschaft (Neve 1998:515).
138
Visitor paths and facilities and a car park were built including resting spots and
WCs at Yazılıkaya and the Sphinx Gate, and an information centre that was
constructed in 1991 (Neve 1998:520). The main approach, as explained above,
was to display the plans of buildings to the visitors. In due course, however,
this two-dimensional presentation was deemed insufficient and subsequently
various reconstruction projects were carried out to introduce the third
dimension (see the wall and architectural decorations in the section above).
In the early 2000s, the team embarked on the reconstruction of a 65m section
of the city’s fortifications including two towers and three curtain walls193
(Figure 3.31), the first of its kind in Turkey (Seeher&Schachner 2014:149).
Accessibility (both during construction by the team and after construction by
the visitors) was an important factor in reconstructing the wall close to the
entrance to the site (Seeher 2007b:32). In 2003, the reconstruction began with
consolidating the wall’s stone socles and producing mudbricks required for the
construction (Seeher 2005:353) and was completed in 2005 with final
landscaping carried out the following year194 (Seeher 2007a).
Figure 3.31 The reconstructed section of the fortification walls (the author 2015)
193 See Seeher (2007a) for a detailed account of the project.
194 The reconstructed walls were opened to visitors at a ceremony on 27.07.2006 with the
participation of the-then Minister of Culture and Tourism Atilla Koç (Schachner 2008:167).
139
Conservation staff
Routine architectural conservation work (i.e. backfilling and raising walls) are
carried out by a team of specialized workers (Seeher & Schachner 2014:141–
142), who have been trained since Neve’s directorship. For more complicated
projects, such as the wall reconstruction or decisions regarding stone
conservation, experts are outsourced. The company Klessing
(http://www.jmklessing.com/) was employed for the wall reconstruction
(Seeher 2005:351).
In the mid-1990s, a stone conservator worked at the site to determine remedies
for cracks (Seeher 1997:328). More recently, a stone conservation team from
the University of Erfurt in Germany became involved with the site and
performed condition surveys and decided on urgent interventions (Schachner
pers. comm. 2015). Documentation of unearthed architectural remains is
carried out by German archaeologists who are part of the archaeological team
and are trained in documentation techniques (Schachner pers. comm. 2015).
Funding
The main funding for conservation at Hattusha comes from the DAI.
Otherwise, project-based funding has been obtained, such as in the case of the
expropriation in 1982, which was funded by DAI in collaboration with the
Theodor Wiegand Gesellschaft (Neve 1984:146, 1998:515). The largest
project at Hattusha, the partial reconstruction of the fortification wall, was
funded by Japan Tobacco International (Seeher 2007a).
Community engagement
There is a long tradition of local worker involvement of whom
Seeher&Schachner say they have “…developed a strong sense of pride for the
various works completed at the site” (2014:142). This involvement goes back
to Neve’s directorship, who was influential in creating a continuous team of
workers consisting of the villagers, especially for conservation (Seeher
140
1995:67). Schachner adds that workers remember where they found specific
items, which displays their sense of ownership towards the site (pers. comm.
2015).
The tri-lingual (Turkish, German, English) www.Hattusha.org was operational
from 2002 onwards (Seeher 2004:13) and later www.hattuscha.de was used,
but those sites have since been closed. Information about work at Hattusha can
now be accessed through the DAI website, as for all other German-run
excavations in Turkey (http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/48178). The pages provide information in German on the history of the
site, history of research, and previously completed archaeological projects.
3.4.4 Pergamon
Located in the Bergama district of Izmir, the site has been investigated by the
Germans since 1878, when the engineer Carl Humann began excavations on
behalf of the Museums of Berlin195 (Kästner 2014:20), followed by Wilhelm
Dörpfeld in 1900-1913. More recently, from 1972 until 2004, excavations were
carried out under the direction of Wolfgang Radt, and since 2005 by Felix
Pirson of DAI (Radt 2014:38). The site was inscribed on the World Heritage
List in 2014. Pergamon essentially consists of three areas including the
Hellenistic Acropolis at the top of the hill, the Roman period city to the south
of the hill, and the Asklepeion to the south west (Ratté 1997a:261).
Until the 1970s, central to the excavations had been the study of ancient
remains “on the Acropolis with their temples and palaces, at the Upper Agora
range with the Altar of Pergamon, at the Gymnasion and also at the
Asklepeion” (Radt 2006a:279), but when Radt took over as director new
research questions meant the focus shifted to the residential areas, only a small
number of which had been unearthed in the preceding years (Radt 2006a:279,
195 The responsibility of the excavations passed from the Museums of Berlin to the DAI in
1937 (Radt 2014:41).
141
2014:42–43). The resulting excavations revealed not classical but Late
Byzantine houses, which were documented in detail and then removed in
search for earlier period buildings (Radt 2006a:282, 2014:44). The discovery
of Bau Z and its partial reconstruction/shelter construction, as well as the
completion of the Temple of Trajan’s partial reconstruction, also date to this
period. Pirson’s focus has been the eastern and western slopes of the Acropolis,
as well as investigations in the wider territory of Pergamon (such as Elaia)
(Radt 2014:46), and the restoration and sculpture reconstructions at the Red
Hall.
Conservation work196 has been part of the Pergamon excavations since the
early days, at least since Dörpfeld’s involvement with the site (Radt 2006c:62;
Bachmann 2014b:83), whose general approach continues to guide
conservation interventions (Bachmann 2014b:80). His interventions were
three-fold: firstly, simple repairs, infills and reconstructions specially to
provide structural stability, which were not immediately distinguishable but
could still be differentiated from the original by the use of different materials;
secondly, shelter constructions197, and thirdly, re-erection of architectural
elements. Of particular importance has been the differentiation of infills and
the use of local materials and resources. Buildings are recorded in detail
followed by deterioration maps according to which an intervention catalogue
is designed (DAI n.d.d). The continuity of these main techniques meant that
196 Conservation works feature in almost every ERM report with activities explained under
dedicated subtitles such as "Documentation, Building and Restoration Works", "Architectural
Documentation", and "Conservation and Repair Works". In addition to the ERM reports,
information on conservation practices can be found in articles published by the team members
as well as e-reports published on DAI’s website (http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/14186).
197 The shelter constructed on top of the original walls of the House of Attalos to cover the
mosaics and wall decorations discovered in 1904 is a forebear of similar interventions. The
excavation house and subsequent shelters at the site are of a similar appearance (Pirson &
Bachmann pers. comm. 2011).
142
Pergamon was “homogenous in its conservation approach and setting” (Pirson
& Bachmann pers. comm. 2011).
Over the years, conservation work focused on different areas in the ancient
city. From the 1980s until the mid-2000s, the emphasis was on the architectural
documentation, consolidation and restoration of buildings on the Acropolis,
with major projects carried out at the Trajaneum and Bau Z. This focus later
shifted to the Roman Lower Town, the Red Hall, which contributed to the
perception of the long history of the city and its later phases (DAI n.d.d;
Bachmann 2014b:80). The construction of a cable-car (by the local
municipality) on the eastern slopes of the Acropolis necessitated a re-
assessment of that part of the site in terms of visitor appreciation, and led to a
new conservation project at the Gymnasium (Bachmann 2014b:98). Recent
years have also seen interventions on building walls that collapse due to
weather conditions or vandalism.
During Radt’s directorship, unlike previous periods, detailed architectural and
site documentation became important aspects of the project (Radt 2014:43).
After Pirson’s succession as director, the project engaged in the use of digital
technology and GIS-integrated research. The GIS-Pergamon was created, on
to which information about documented buildings was transferred (Pirson
2007:500–501, 2008:266), and a new documentation grid system was devised
in 2005 (PerKSys2005). The first results of the digital map, which began to be
prepared in 2005, were obtained in 2007 with the 3D modelling of the
Acropolis (Pirson 2009a:58, 70).
Site conservation
One of the major interventions in the 1980s and 1990s was the partial
reconstruction of the Temple of Trajan –an area that had been left more or less
as it was since its excavation in the 1880s (Nohlen 1999:91–92).
Considerations for its re-erection had already surfaced in the 1960s, and by the
1970s work had begun. The project features significantly in the ERM reports,
143
starting from the first report of the 1979 season until mid-1990s, with detailed
information until the completion of works in 1994 (Radt 1996:60-61) including
the final environmental design and installation of information panels, and
subsequent repair of a terrace wall (Radt 1997:28–29). The project entailed the
partial re-erection of the northeast corner of the building using original stones,
and artificial stones where originals were missing198 (Figure 3.32). Parts of the
building have been treated since to remedy damages caused by either
vandalism or dampness.
Figure 3.32 Before and after views of the Temple of Trajan (Radt 1999:139)
Consolidation and restoration works were carried out in this period at various
other buildings such as the Heroon, Hall with Podia, Bau Z, the Temple of
Hera, the Attalos House199 and the Altar –the latter especially after the
completion of the Trajaneum.
Another comprehensive project in the 1990s was the construction of a shelter
above Bau Z200 (Figure 3.33), essentially to protect the mosaics discovered
inside the building and to display them in their ‘context’ (Bachmann 2006:41;
198 See Radt (1999), Nohlen (1999) and Nohlen (2014b) for detailed information regarding the
background, philosophy and implementation of the project.
199 The 1980 ERM report states that although the recently vandalized Attalos House is under
the responsibility of the Bergama Museum, the excavation team took it upon themselves to
construct a shelter, restore the damaged wall and clean the mosaics (Radt 1981:37).
200 See Bachmann & Schwarting (2005, 2008) for further details of the shelter.
144
Radt 2006c:65). Once the shelter was completed in 2003201, mosaic
conservation began202 (Radt 2006c:66; Bachmann & Schwarting 2008:165).
Figure 3.33 Bau Z (the author 2011)
In 2002, Red Hall became the focus203. Detailed documentation carried out
over four seasons (completed in 2005) (Radt 2004:260; Pirson 2007:507)
revealed that the building posed serious structural problems especially in the
upper walls –accelerated by the fact that scaffolding in earlier restorations was
not high enough to allow interventions at altitude (Pirson & Bachmann pers.
comm. 2011). In addition, the southern tower was in serious disrepair.
Conservation work began here in 2006; the aim was to convert the tower into
a museum and also create a new storage building. Work was completed204 in
2009 (Pirson 2008:270–274). The main approach entailed “…avoiding total
reconstructions and accepting the periods of the building as important” (Pirson
& Bachmann pers. comm. 2011). The project enabled visitors to see the inside
201 Its opening was celebrated with a symposium at which 28 archaeological directors and
researchers made presentations (Radt 2006b:93–94). The proceedings were published as ed.
Radt (2006).
202 The building is being monitored for its effectiveness in protecting the mosaics since its
opening (Bachmann & Schwarting 2008:172).
203 Other small-scale interventions in the 2000s involved the vandalised Demeter Sanctuary in
2003-04 (Radt 2006b:94), and the Temple of Trajan in 2007, where certain measures were
taken to limit visitor access after serious vandalism incidents (Pirson 2009a:68). A condition
survey of the Asklepeion was carried out also in 2007 following a request of the Izmir Regional
Conservation Council, and in 2011-12, the dome of the round building in the Asklepeion was
restored (Pirson & Bachmann 2014:362).
204 The opening ceremony was attended by the Minister of Culture and Tourism Ertuğrul
Günay, the German ambassador to Ankara E. Cuntz and other dignitaries (Pirson 2011:251).
145
of the tower for the first time (Figure 3.34) (Pirson & Bachmann pers. comm.
2011). Work in this area proceeded with the conservation and partial
reconstruction of the south-eastern temenos wall and the vaulted basement
attached to the south of the tower (Pirson 2011:251–252; Bachmann 2013:422)
and was completed in 2012.
Figure 3.34 Inside of the tower (the author 2011)
In 2009, once the conservation of the tower was completed, work began on the
reconstruction of one of the sculptural figures of the Red Hall, the shape of
which had been ascertained through previous excavations in this area. The
project was carried out in order to display these architectural elements in their
context, thereby making the building more legible, to prevent further
deterioration caused by dampness by removing the pieces off the ground, and
to continue the stone masonry training tradition of the excavation initiated
during the partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan (Pirson 2012:123). The
project was completed in 2012205 (Pirson & Bachmann 2014:362).
Alongside on-going projects at the Red Hall, a new large-scale conservation
project was initiated in 2011 at the Gymnasium of the Acropolis. The initial
point of focus was the partial reconstruction of the Festtor (Ceremonial
Gateway), but the scope was widened to cover the entire complex (Pirson &
Bachmann 2014:361–362). One aspect of the project involved restoring the
205 MoCT carried out other restorations in the Red Hall, which the DAI advised on (Bachmann
2014c:107).
146
retaining wall, which had been restored by Dörpfeld a hundred years before
(Bachmann 2014b:100). The project continues.
Site presentation
In terms of site presentation, the team focused primarily on the architectural
conservation efforts described above. Otherwise, they were involved in the
installation of information panels and the design of visitor routes. The earliest
site-wide reference to presentation activities in the ERM reports dates to 1985
and 1986, which mentions information panels installed in the town of Bergama
upon the request of the local authority, and renewal of those erected previously
in 1973 as they were badly vandalised (Radt 1987:218, 2006c:65). There is not
much information about any particular programmes relating to site
presentation after this period. In 2012-13, a new visitor route was designed that
encompassed the monuments on the Acropolis, as well as those further below
(Figure 3.35), such as the Gymnasium and the Red Hall (Figure 3.36)
(Bachmann 2014a:196, 2014c:108). Bau Z also served as an incentive to attract
visitors to the lower parts of the Acropolis.
Figure 3.35 General concept of the new visitor route (Bachmann 2014c:108)
147
Figure 3.36 Visitor route in and around the Red Hall and the Gymnasium (Bachmann
2014a:196, 2014b:99)
Management planning
Considerations of a management plan began in the late 2000s (Pirson
2011:253). The BERMIRAS Cultural Heritage Management Project was
initiated by the Koç University’s Department of Archaeology and History of
Art (Carolyn Chabot Aslan, Lucienne Thys-Şenocak, and Çiğdem Maner), in
collaboration with the Municipality of Bergama, DAI – Istanbul Branch, and
Mimar Sinan University (Koç University: Archaeology and History of Art
n.d.). Although the project title is suggestive of a management plan, it was
essentially an awareness-raising project and aimed to establish a teachers’
training programme, design child-friendly information panels for the site, and
create an education centre with the local museum for the sustainability of the
educational activities to be proposed. Aspects of the project involved research
on visitor access, circulation and behaviour in relation to area in the Acropolis
(Pirson 2011:253). The project did not come to fruition.
The Municipality of Bergama (the local authority with the remit to prepare a
management plan for the ancient site) began site management preparations
within the context of the World Heritage nomination process. It created a
World Heritage Office for both the nomination process and the preparation of
a management plan (Bergama Municipality World Heritage Office 2013:299).
The nomination file was prepared by the Municipality of Bergama’s World
148
Heritage Office (Bergama Municipality World Heritage Office 2013:472) and
contains a draft outline of the management plan206.
DAI has recently initiated an infrastructural site management tool called the
“DAI-Modul”, which is effectively an open-access information database, to
aid the planning processes concerning the site (Göçmen & Tezer 2014).
Conservation staff
Conservation at Pergamon was carried out by several internal and external
experts, mostly employed on a project-basis (particularly for a range of
specialisms related to building conservation), of fields ranging from
architectural conservation to sculpture conservation and structural engineering.
The major project of the 1980s and 1990s, the Trajaneum, was led by the
German bauforscher Klaus Nohlen, who had been involved with the site since
1971 (Nohlen 1999:101), and was carried out by a team of German experts
(Schmidt 1993:173) and Turkish stonemasons trained in the process. The next
major project, the shelter for Bau Z, was designed and supervised by the
German architects M. Bachmann (DAI), who has also been spearheading the
architectural and site conservation work almost two decades, and A.
Schwarting, a former team member. Mosaic and stucco conservation at Bau Z
was carried out by Hande Kökten and a team from the Ankara Vocational High
School for Conservation, Mehmet Savaşgan, as well as Peter R. Pracher’s
atelier207 from Germany (Radt 2005:155; Bachmann 2014b:90).
Seasonal work at Pergamon is carried out with two conservation architects (one
of whom is M. Bachmann), several artefact conservators, and students (Pirson
206 Although the World Heritage nomination dossier states that the plan was to be finalized in
the spring of 2013, it was a draft of the management plan that was submitted to the World
Heritage Centre.
207 The long-standing atelier worked on two other projects in Turkey: the underwater
archaeological museum in Bodrum and Atatürk Müze Köşkü in Ankara (www.konservierung-
restaurierung.de/).
149
& Bachmann pers. comm. 2011). More recently, a special office within the
DAI has taken charge of preparing conservation projects for those sites that are
within the remit of DAI and Pergamon is benefiting from this: for example,
this office designed the visitor route for the Red Hall.
As mentioned above, the excavation and conservation team were not directly
involved with the WHS nomination process although they are understood to
have provided crucial supporting material particularly during the final stages
of the inscription process.
Funding
As the main funding body of the Pergamon excavations (Radt 2006c:66), the
DAI funded the anastylosis of the Trajaneum and the Bau Z shelter208, as well
as the conservation of mosaics and stucco of the building (Radt 2006a).
Conservation projects also benefited from the support of the Auswärtiges Amt
- Kulturerhaltprogramm (The Cultural Preservation Programme of the Federal
Foreign Office)209 and the Kulturstiftung der Deutsch-Türkischen Wirtschaft
(Cultural Foundation of German-Turkish Businesses)210.
Red Hall’s conversion into a museum was one of the projects of the “Ernst
Reuter Initiative for Intercultural Dialogue and Understanding” (DAI 2011:36)
initiated by the foreign ministries of Turkey and Germany in 2006 to boost
Turkish-German collaboration in the fields of “arts and culture, politics and
208 The total cost of the shelter over Bau Z, including the building’s restoration and the
construction of the shelter, was 700.000 Euros (Bachmann & Schwarting 2008:172).
209 This programme finances the restoration of secular and religious buildings, and
documentation of endangered cultural heritage around the world (Federal Foreign Office
(2014). Between the years of 1981-2015 the program has supported 2700 projects in 144
countries through approximately 65 million Euros (Federal Foreign Office 2015a).
210 Established in 2005 upon the initiative of the German Embassy in Ankara to foster cultural
exchange between the two countries ((Federal Foreign Office 2015b).
150
the media, the economy, science and education” (Federal Foreign Office
2011).
Since the 2010s, foundations in Germany and USA have been supporting
major conservation projects. One is the Munich-based Studiosus Foundation,
which also funded the conservation of the Red Hall, including the partial
reconstruction of the temenos wall, and the reconstruction of supportive figures
(Pirson 2008:270). The Foundation also supports the recent project at the
Palaestra of the Gymnasium and also funded two local masons and a trainee
(Studiosus Foundation n.d.a). The J.M. Kaplan Fund’s support to the
Gymnasium Project from 2012 meant the project could be expanded (Pirson &
Bachmann 2014:360).
Information on private donations is very limited. One rare reference concerns
the financial support of the German Consul General and a citizen from Izmir
for the production of information panels in 1985 (Radt 1987:218).
Community engagement
The project has employed local workers since the early days and is continuing
in this tradition. During the partial reconstruction of the Temple of Trajan, a
stonemason-training programme was initiated, which W. Koenigs, the former
director of DAI likens it to a “stonemason school” (Nohlen 2014a:220). This
lasted the entire duration of the project, through which a number of local
workers were trained at the site by Swiss and German experts on traditional
stone workmanship. Trained stonemasons were able to work at various other
archaeological excavations in the Aegean and the Mediterranean (including
foreign-run and Turkish-run excavations at Priene, Didyma, Patara, Nysa,
Klaros) (Nohlen 2014a:218–219). This tradition continued during the
construction of the Bau Z shelter (Bachmann & Schwarting 2008:165), and the
partial reconstruction of the architectural support figures at the Red Hall
(Pirson 2012:123). Otherwise, the project’s outreach activities are limited to a
151
public lecture in Zeytindağ about the surveys in Elaia (Pirson & Bachmann
pers. comm. 2011).
The project website is hosted by the DAI (http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-
/project-display/14186) and contains information (in German with a small
number of English pages) about the more recent conservation interventions at
the Bau Z, the Red Hall, and the Gymnasium.
3.4.5 Priene
Located in the Güllübahçe district of Aydın, Priene was first investigated as
part of the expeditions of the British Society of Dilettanti during the 18th and
19th centuries. Carl Humann began excavating in 1895, after whose death
work continued under the supervision of Theodor Wiegand and Hans Schrader
from the Berlin Museum, who carried out excavations in 1895-1899 (Ratté
1997b:351; Raeck 2006b:316). After investigations in the 1970s, excavations
recommenced in 1992 under the direction of Wolf Koenigs and Wulf Raeck
(eds. Türe & Filges 1999:7) of the Goethe-University of Frankfurt/Main –the
latter became the director in 2001. The project was turned over to the Turkish
authorities in 2014 and that year was excavated under the supervision of the
Miletus Museum Directorate with Prof. Hakan Mert, Uludağ University, and
Axel Filges, Goethe-University of Frankfurt/Main, as scientific advisors211.
DAI continues to support the project, particularly work related to architectural
conservation (DAI 2015a:79).
By the time excavations resumed, almost half of the ancient city had been
excavated (DAI 2011:38). The site, founded in the 4th century BC, consists of
a lower and upper city within fortifications (Figure 3.37). The lower city, built
according to a grid plan, has an agora at the centre and the Temple of Athena
to its north west (Ratté 1997b:351). The lower-gymnasium and the stadium are
211 A scientific cooperation protocol was signed between the universities of Uludağ and Goethe
(Akat, Mert & Filges 2016:122).
152
at the southernmost end of the lower city, while the theatre and the Bouleterion
are to the north. The site is known for its well-preserved residential areas.
Figure 3.37 Site plan of Priene (Raeck 2006b:316)
Conservation interventions usually do not stand out within the landscape
(Raeck, Mert & Filges 2015:194). Reconstructions are avoided, and
conservation is mostly in the form of wall-top consolidation, dismantling and
rebuilding of walls, and wall plaster conservation. This main approach has
been consolidated through the holistic report prepared in 2012 that assessed
conditions at the site and made recommendations with regards to site
conservation and presentation. The two guiding principles that emerged in this
process demonstrate the values of the site to be conserved and presented: ‘the
model city of Priene, a well-preserved Hellenistic city’, and ‘the romantic ruin
city amidst the landscape’ that visitors wish to discover by themselves (Filges
2015:182).
Site conservation
Since the early years of the project, conservation interventions212 focused
mostly on structurally unsafe buildings to remedy impacts of weathering or
212 Information related with conservation comes from the ERM reports, the project website,
and DAI’s e-reports (e-Forschungs Berichte). ERM reports contain dedicated, albeit short,
sections on conservation, where activities in each intervened building is mentioned.
153
harsh winters, as well as vandalism, and on the re-erection of significant
buildings to aid the holistic interpretation of the site but “without disturbing
the park-like character of the excavation site with disproportionate complete
reconstructions” (DAI 2011:38). Conservation efforts aimed to reflect a
‘scientific responsibility’ in such a way that interventions would not stand out
within the landscape (Raeck et al. 2015:194). As the site had been excavated
in previous centuries, the remains had been long exposed to climatic conditions
and were in precarious state, the situation aggravated in particular due to the
stone building material and construction techniques of residential buildings
(DAI 2011:39). Conservation was mostly in the form of wall-top
consolidation, dismantling and rebuilding of walls, and wall plaster
conservation. There are also repeated references each year to efforts expended
on repairing walls that had suffered during the winter months or damage
resulting from vandalism (Raeck 2006a:62, 2008:333, 2009:33).
During the first few years of the new project, the team documented all visible
architectural remains to create a site plan (Raeck 2004:177). Efforts towards a
digital site plan began in the early 2010s (Raeck, Mert & Filges 2014:63–64)
following MoCT’s request. The plan was completed in 2014 (Akat, Mert &
Filges 2016:130).
Work during the early years of the excavation focused primarily on public
buildings in the northern part of the lower city, such as the Bouleterion, the
Demeter Sanctuary, Agora Sacred Gallery, and the Theatre (Koenigs et al.
2000; Raeck 2003). The Temple of Athena particularly dominated
conservation efforts in those years. The main approach was to concentrate on
buildings that were regular visitor attractions and needed urgent conservation
measures (Raeck 2008:333).
154
In 2010, focus shifted to western and north-western residential areas, which
had been documented from 2008 onwards, and to consolidate wall tops213 –a
project that continued until 2013 (Raeck & Rumscheid 2012:105; Raeck et al.
2015:193–194). Another undertaking was the three-year project that involved
the construction of a supporting wall between the Agora and the sanctuary of
Athena and the Meat and Fish Market, which was completed in 2013 (Raeck
et al. 2015:194).
A major assessment came in 2012, when an architectural office from Berlin,
J.M. Klessing Architects (http://www.jmklessing.com/), the company that was
also the architectural consultant in the reconstruction of the city walls at
Hattusha, prepared a report concerning the conservation and presentation of
the site (Raeck et al. 2014:61; Filges 2015:181–182). They proposed three
priority areas for conservation (Sanctuary of Athena, Roman Baths and the
Agora) (Figure 3.38) and a visitor route (Filges 2015:182–183).
Figure 3.38 Site conservation concept – priority areas, by J. M. Klessing and A. Hoffschildt
(Raeck et al. 2014:67)
213 Filges refers how the experiences obtained during the multi-year project has led to certain
changes in their methodology, such as in the composition of their conservation mortar (Filges
2015:183).
155
Based on Klessing Architects’ urgent safety measures, 18 places across the site
were consolidated and restored according to five main themes that were
defined in the plan: restoration of walls, consolidation of ancient street
pavements, emphasis on insula corners and lower wall corners to increase
visibility, backfilling of several old trenches, and consolidation of city walls
(Raeck et al. 2014:61).
In this period, attention also turned to the Roman Baths (Upper Gymnasium),
which despite its prominent central location had remained under-researched,
with the intention of remedying major structural deformations and
incorporating it into the visitor route (DAI 2011:39). In 2013, a condition
survey and a conservation project were outsourced, which identified urgent
measures to resolve structural problems (Figure 3.39) (Raeck et al. 2015:193–
194). The implementation, spread over two seasons, began in 2014, based on
principles including preservation of all traces of previous periods and
differentiation of new infill (Akat et al. 2016:124).
Figure 3.39 Conservation measures defined by J.M. Klessing Architects (Filges 2015:185)
Site presentation
Presentation efforts mainly revolved around restoration and consolidation of
individual buildings along visitor paths. Other than building-oriented work,
there are references to information panels that were installed at strategic
locations and in front of specific buildings (Raeck 2004, 2005, 2006a). The
Klessing report in 2012 proposed visitor routes, and identified modern and
156
ancient paths that needed to be rehabilitated, areas that should be better
connected to one another, and focal points that required improvements (Figure
3.40).
In 2013 and 2014, following the request of MoCT, information panels were
updated to comply with MoCT specifications (Raeck et al. 2015:199). In 2014,
bilingual (Turkish and German) visitor brochures were prepared (Akat et al.
2016:130).
Figure 3.40 Site presentation, by J. M. Klessing and A. Hoffschildt (Raeck et al. 2014:67)
Conservation staff
Conservation work has been carried out mostly by team members specializing
in architecture, buildings archaeology (bauforschung) and stone conservation,
including the stone conservator G. Höfig and architect A. Hennemeyer, who
are named in most of the ERM reports as supervisors of documentation and
conservation work. There were also cases where freelance stonemasons
worked at the site, including the stonemason Ismail Celimli who worked in
1999-2004 –he continues to work at many other archaeological excavations
including Didyma, where he is a long-time collaborator– and Christoph
Kronewirth in the early 2000s, who also works at Didyma. In terms of
157
outsourcing, Klessing Architects were invited to prepare a site assessment
report in 2012, and they also carried out a condition survey and prepared an
architectural project concerning the conservation and structural consolidation
of the Roman Baths. Implementation of the two-year project is being carried
out by a team of German-Turkish architects led by Andreas Hoffschildt of
Klessing Architects.
Funding
The project was funded by the DAI, the German Research Foundation (DFG),
Fritz Thyssen Foundation and the Leopold Wemer Foundation (Raeck 2013
season). Miletus Museum Directorate, as the director of the Priene excavations
since 2014, finances conservation work. They funded the visitor brochures
prepared in 2014. DAI and Frankfurt University continue to support the new
excavations both in terms of experts and funding. They contributed to the
conservation of the Roman Baths and the installation of new information
panels (Akat et al. 2016).
Community engagement
There is no information concerning activities or projects to engage the local
community of Güllübahçe. The project website is hosted by the DAI
(https://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-display/48590) and contains very
brief information about the site and several reports in German.
3.4.6 Troy
Troy, located on the Hisarlık district of Çanakkale, was first excavated by F.
Calvert and later by H. Schliemann in the second half of the 19th century. Upon
Schliemann’s death, W. Dörpfeld continued the work in 1893-94. C. W.
Blegen of the University of Cincinnati directed a new phase of excavations in
1932-38 (Korfmann 1990:283), after which there were no systematic
excavations until 1988, when M. Korfmann of the University of Tübingen
started the phase of research at Troy. Upon his death in 2005, E. Pernicka from
158
the same university became the director (ed. Bayram 2008:254–255) and
continued until 2012. The assistant director to Pernicka, R. Arslan of
Çanakkale 18 Mart University became the director in 2013. Troy was inscribed
on the World Heritage List in 1998. The site consists of a citadel mound and a
lower city. The multiple layers of the mound contain remnants of “Bronze Age
citadels, the sanctuary of Athena Ilias, and other public buildings of Greek and
Roman Ilion” (Figure 3.41) (Jablonka 2011:718).
Figure 3.41 Site plan (Riorden 2009:120)
Conservation214 and presentation were integrated with archaeological work
from the early days (Hueber 1994:122–123; Aslan 2010:176–177; Riorden
2014:428), particularly visible in Korfmann’s approach which considered Troy
part of a wider setting, the Troad, and strived to safeguard both the site and this
landscape. Following his death, focus centred on publishing previous
214 ERM reports contain information related to site documentation, artefact conservation,
architectural interventions and site presentation. Projects related with site conservation were
published periodically in the Studia Troica series, such as Filgis & Mayer’s report (1992),
Hueber’s conservation and presentation guidelines, and Riorden’s (2014) assessment of 20
years’ conservation work at Troy, which includes a chart of all conservation interventions that
took place between 1988 and 2008.
159
excavations, and ensuring that conservation interventions progressed
according to the defined principles. Conservation interventions were primarily
directed at consolidation and stabilization, and particularly aimed at site
legibility. Large-scale reconstructions were avoided. In this respect, the
conservation practice at Troy is more in line with an active maintenance
mechanism.
Site conservation
During the hiatus until Korfmann began his research, the exposed remains had
deteriorated significantly and the site had turned into a “ruin of ruins” (Aslan
2010:177). The priority in the early years was to record the site and conserve
areas excavated by Schliemann. Also important was to balance site
conservation with the attraction of Troy as a tourist destination. Therefore, the
team engaged in developing a conservation philosophy that brought these
factors together. Korfmann invited external experts, mostly from Germany, to
advise on how to approach the exposed remains and present the site to visitors.
The contributions of M.N. Filgis, W. Mayer, and F. Hueber, whose guidelines
were based on the Venice Charter, were instrumental in establishing
appropriate conservation methodologies for Troy during the first decade of the
project (Riorden 2014).
In 1992, Hueber215 joined the documentation and conservation team and
initiated the Gesamtplanung for the conservation and presentation of the site
(Hueber 1994:123). Crucial in Hueber’s opinion was also site documentation.
By then, a documentation system had been set up and site recording had begun
by engaging the use of computer technology and photogrammetry (Korfmann
1990:285, 1993:381). Hueber’s significant contribution to this scheme,
together with E. Riorden, was to update W. Dörpfeld and W. Wilberg’s site
215 A bauforscher based at the Ludwig Boltzmann-Institut für Denkmalpflege und
Archaologische Bauforschung (DAB-Institut).
160
plan to include the excavations of C.W. Blegen, M. Korfmann and C.B.
Rose216 (Riorden & Hueber 1994). A digital plan of the site was completed in
1992. 3D modelling of several Trojan layers began in the mid-1990s, by
Riorden and her team, and has continued in collaboration with P. Jablonka
(Riorden n.d.).
Hueber also defined the infill technique to be used across the site. The general
approach was to differentiate original and infill material through a mortar joint
with inserted tiles or by the use of smaller stones to create a surface –these
methods would not be particularly obvious from afar but clear on closer
inspection (Riorden 2014:435–436). In parallel to efforts to develop the
general conservation philosophy, Dr. W. Grüner and Dr. S. Mausfeld from the
Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing carried out research on
stone weathering217 in 1992 (Korfmann 1994:336).
In terms of site conservation work, one of the urgent conservation measures in
the early years was the construction of a mudbrick wall to support the
foundation walls in the Schliemann Yarması to prevent further damage
(Korfmann 1990:286). Areas where erosion and climatic conditions could do
further damage were backfilled with materials in a way that would enable them
to be distinguished from undisturbed ground. Another reason for backfilling
was to create reserve areas for future researchers with newer technologies
(Korfmann 1994:328). Between 1992 and 1998, the conservation team worked
at the cavea and the stage building of the Roman Odeion to stabilize the
remains (Riorden 2014:439). Other interventions involved consolidation and
repair of walls and surfaces due to erosion or visitor traffic. One of the
complexities of working at Troy is legibility, as there are numerous
216 Carried out between 1992 and 1994, surveys resulted in two colour-coded site plans in
1/200 scale which were published in the Studia Troica v.4 1994.
217 Another research project was carried out in 2009, by Mustafa Kibaroğlu of the University
of Tübingen, to establish sources of stones used in the walls, which is expected to aid in
identifying appropriate stone restoration techniques (Pernicka & Aslan 2011:246).
161
superimposed layers at any time. Various interventions, such as raising walls,
or wall cappings, were carried out to consolidate and differentiate.
A major conservation intervention involved the 4m-high citadel walls and
1.5m-high mudbrick walls of the Megaron at the Troy II/III level (Korfmann
2004:6), which contained traces of fire. They were covered with a specially
created layer of ‘burned’ brick (Riorden 2014:440). A membrane shelter was
built in 2003 to cover these remarkable remains. Designed by an architectural
student from Stuttgart University, as part of a student competition, the structure
emulates the appearance of the mound prior to excavations and aims to evoke
the prominent north-eastern winds of the Troad through its sail-like shape
(Figure 3.42, Figure 3.43) (Korfmann 2004:6). The design is praised in the site
management masterplan and is considered a ‘signature’ design of Troy
(Riorden 2009:87; Riorden 2014:441)
Figure 3.42 The shelter (the author 2011)
Figure 3.43 Information panel in front of the shelter (the author 2011)
162
Site presentation
Presentation efforts primarily consisted of architectural intervention to
increase legibility, examined above. Otherwise, creation of a visitor route was
one of the early interventions218. Because the site attracted a large number of
visitors each year, the team felt the need to design ways to limit associated
damages and constructed visitor walkways. The initial stone material was later
changed to timber to prevent visitors from walking on actual archaeological
fabric, even though this meant a continuous maintenance responsibility.
Another advantage of a timber walkway was to stop the confusion between the
old and new in the minds of the visitors (Riorden 2014:431–433). Tri-lingual
information panels were installed along this route, their conditions monitored
against vandalism incidents, and renewed when necessary.
In 1990, the dig house used by the Americans in 1930 (Semple House) was
restored to house a computer area, photography and conservation lab, and an
office (Figure 3.44). A space was also used as an exhibition area for visitors
(Korfmann 1992b:425) and continues to be on the visitor route. The results of
the excavation and surveys were presented to visitors, for example,
archaeological layers of Troy were marked on a section of earth to demonstrate
how the mound was formed, and the newly generated computer-based plan of
Troy was shown in the exhibition room (Korfmann 1994).
In 1996, E. Fulford, an American landscape architect, was invited to Troy to
prepare a master plan for visitors (Rose 2012). N. Stanley-Price also refers to
his study of visitor signs (Stanley-Price 1996:21). It is not clear what came out
of this work or whether any parts of it were used subsequently.
218 There is also a single reference to a dedicated team member answering questions of tourist
groups (Korfmann 1994).
163
Figure 3.44 The Semple House (the author 2011)
The team, for many years expressed their desire to have an on-site or nearby
museum in order to complement the site visit (Korfmann’s various ERM
reports, Riorden 2009, Aslan 2010, Pernicka 2012). Although begun, its
construction has yet to be completed.
Management planning
An archaeological site management masterplan was authored by Riorden, an
architect from the University of Cincinnati who been a team member since
1990, with the help of two architects (Riorden 2009:viii). The plan was
requested by MoCT as Troy was a WHS (Pernicka pers. comm. 2011; Aslan
2010:179). One of the aims for this masterplan was to facilitate an eventual
site management plan, and it was hoped that the “the priorities and
recommendations … will be immediately adopted in a Troy Site Management
Plan developed by the responsible parties” (Riorden 2009). Time and financial
constraints are given as the reasons why the plan did not entail a participatory
process or involve a consultation phase, but it did comprise interviews with
several professionals in the excavation team, as well as tourists, in 2008
(Riorden 2009:23). The plan was submitted to MoCT in 2011 and translated
into Turkish as per its request. The plan makes recommendations on various
issues, including the natural environment, maintenance of the site,
infrastructure, outreach, accessibility, visitor management and maintenance.
164
Conservation staff
Archaeologists, restorers, architects, bauforschers, draughtsmen, civil
engineers, museum specialists were involved in the recording219 and
conservation of the site (Aslan 2010:178). In the early years of the project,
experts were brought in to advice on conservation principles, urgent matters
and guidelines. There has been a long-standing collaboration with the School
of Architecture, University of Cincinnati. Architectural documentation and
conservation interventions were carried out by architects in collaboration with
local stonemasons (Riorden 2014:429).
Funding
The primary funding bodies for the excavation and conservation work at Troy
have been the German Research Foundation (DFG), and the universities of
Tübingen and Çanakkale. About one third of the funds came from the public
domain and two thirds from private funds from Germany, USA and Turkey,
which roughly amounted to 1 million DM each year (Project Troia 2007).
The project enjoyed the support of various corporations, societies and private
donors to realize the architectural conservation interventions, information
panels, visitor walkways and other relevant work. Examples of corporate
support are Daimler-ChryslerAG, Mercedes Benz and Çanakkale Seramik and
its affiliates, and Akçansa. Particularly, Daimler-Chrysler’s 15-year-long
contribution between 1988 and 2003 is noteworthy (Project Troia 2007). Other
supporters were the Freunde von Troia in Germany and Friends of Troy in the
USA, though their contribution to conservation is not noted. The Çanakkale-
Tübingen Troia Foundation also contributed to conservation work, especially
to pre-season site maintenance.
219 The very first year, Emre Madran and Şinasi Kılıç of METU were involved in
photogrammetric surveys (Korfmann 1990:23, 285).
165
Examples of specific projects are the Semple House, restored in 1990 with the
support of the Semple Fund of the University of Cincinnati; Hueber and his
teams work in the early 1990s, supported by the Ludwig Boltzmann Society,
and the 3D modelling of the site in the mid-1990s, funded by IBM Germany.
The membrane shelter construction was jointly funded by Daimler-Chrysler
and Siemens Turkey (Korfmann 2004:6). The management plan was funded
by the Institute of Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) and the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation (Pernicka, Aslan & Jablonka 2010:167).
Community engagement and outreach
The project website (http://www.uni-tuebingen.de//uni/aft/) was hosted by the
University of Tübingen. The bilingual (German and English) website
presented general information about the site and team members. The project
had a separate website (http://www.uni-
tuebingen.de:80/uni/aft/vr/index_en.html), in German and English, for its 3D
reconstructions. Neither site was operational in 2016.
3.5 Italy
3.5.1 Arslantepe
Arslantepe is in the Orduzu district of Malatya. The first explorations in 1932-
39 by a French team led by Louis Delaporte aimed to research the Neo-Hittite
remains (Frangipane 1993:32). Claude Schaeffer continued excavations after
World War II; however, these did not continue. Italian involvement with the
site began in 1961 with excavations under the direction of Piero Meriggi and
Salvatore M. Puglisi (Frangipane 1993:33). Upon Meriggi’s departure, Puglisi
became the sole director, and was followed by Alba Palmieri from the
University of Rome (Frangipane 1997:213). She was succeeded by Marcella
Frangipane of the same university in 1990. The site was added on Turkey’s
World Heritage Tentative List in 2014. The annual ERM took place in Malatya
in 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of Italian excavations at the site.
166
Arslantepe contains occupation levels spanning several millennia, but most
significantly a very well-preserved public palatial complex dating to the 4th
millennium BC (Figure 3.45) (Frangipane 2011:974–980). Site conservation
interventions220 were preventive in nature by way of simple timber shelters
partially dismantled each season to allow excavations to proceed and rebuilt at
the end of the season (Frangipane pers. comm. 2015).
Figure 3.45 Arslantepe mound and excavated areas (Frangipane 2011:969)
Site conservation
Excavated building remains at Arslantepe are primarily of mudbrick, and the
walls, uncharacteristically for prehistoric sites, can reach 2.5m with
thicknesses up to 1.20m high with much of the original plaster and paintings
intact (Frangipane 2010:204–205). For these reasons, Frangipane was against
220 ERM reports on Arslantepe do not provide much information on conservation (only six
reports contain related material); therefore, this section relies mostly on information published
elsewhere, although there are a limited number of articles focusing on conservation issues (in
English or Turkish). Other than the new shelter for the Palatial Complex, covered in the ERMs
for the seasons 2011 and 2012, ERM reports refer to artefact conservation, wall painting
conservation and transfer of a wall decoration to the local museum, in the seasons 1986, 1996
and 2013 respectively.
167
the use of the more common measures of mudbrick conservation such as
replastering of walls, building on top of existing walls, or applying chemical
consolidants, which she says would not penetrate deep enough and therefore
cause problems (2010:204). Shelters, therefore, were considered to be the most
appropriate conservation method for Arslantepe’s monumental mudbrick
architecture.
In addition to shelters, the team annually monitored the buildings and
maintained them using traditional materials (mudbrick mixed with chaff) while
occasionally treating wall paintings with “a coat of heavily diluted Paraloid”
(Frangipane 2010:205). Repairs with new mudbrick were distinguishable from
the original material (Restelli 2006:46).
The most significant conservation project at Arslantepe concerns the shelter
that covers the 4th millennium Palatial Complex. Construction of a more
permanent shelter for this part of the mound had been considered for some time
and in the early 2000s the team regarded it a more appropriate conservation
measure to prevent water penetration and enable in-situ conservation of wall
paintings (Restelli 2006:46). The shelter had to have minimum physical impact
on the fabric, be cost-effective, easy to build and expand if necessary, and
employ local construction techniques. The initial shelter structure, designed by
architects Claudio Prosperi of the Italian Central Institute for Restoration and
Guiseppe Berucci of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage, was tested at a
less preserved part of the complex. The shelter rested on timber posts and
beams, and had several inclined roofs that aimed to mimic the former shape of
the mound and the rooms underneath but not in a reconstructive manner
(Restelli 2006:48).
The final design, implemented in 2011, is considerably different from the
earlier version but keeps some of the original considerations (Figure 3.46).
Designed by Guiseppe Berucci, this shelter is a metal structure with columns
resting on concrete bases and roofs built of timber covered with insulating
168
material. The main design criteria were for it to be sturdy enough to withstand
the heavy weight of snow, have no foundation, not rest on existing walls, have
open sides to allow for ventilation, and be aesthetically harmonious with its
surroundings (Frangipane 2013, November).
Figure 3.46 The new shelter covering the Palatial Complex (the author 2011)
Rather than constructing a single roof covering the entire Palatial Complex,
the shelter was designed in modules, allowing archaeologists to extend or
dismantle sections where needed, and is composed of separate roofs of
different heights that try to give the impression of the volumes of spaces
underneath (Figure 3.47) (Frangipane 2010:206). Spaces that were thought to
have been unroofed were roofed with special glass to echo the fact that they
were originally open spaces.
Figure 3.47 Interior views of the new shelter (the author 2011)
Visitor walkways that necessitate to walk on original mudbrick were covered
with straw mats to prevent erosion. Otherwise, there are also elevated
walkways of transparent material that allow visitors to observe what is
underneath.
169
Site presentation
The south-western part of the mound functions as an open-air museum that is
bordered by a perimeter fence. Information panels leading from Orduzu
Village prepare visitors for their visit. There is a visitor route highlighted with
information panels (Turkish, English, Italian), and visitors can view a
reconstruction of an Early Bronze Age I Arslantepe House (Figure 3.48).
Figure 3.48 Visitor route, information panels and the reconstructed house (the author 2011)
Conservation staff
Information about people who carried out conservation at Arslantepe is
limited. There is a long-standing collaboration between the project and experts
from the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and the Italian Central Institute
for Restoration221 (Frangipane pers. comm. 2015), who contributed to the
conservation of Arslantepe such as the shelter covering the palace complex
including the design, and pre-construction tests and experiments (Frangipane
2010:210).
Funding
The main funding for the excavations at Arslantepe comes from the University
of Rome with a small amount received from the Italian Ministry of Foreign
221 The Italian Central Institute for Restoration (Istituto Centrale per il Restauro) was founded
in Rome in 1938 by Cesare Brandi, who in 1963 wrote his theory of conservation (Teoria del
Restauro), which became influential internationally (Glendinning 2013:264). See also
http://www.chm.unipg.it/chimgen/network/lbtech/ICR.html.
170
Affairs. Corporate funding was received from Koç Holding and the Fiat Group;
however, it is not clear whether this was towards excavation or conservation
work or both. Likewise, the contributions, if any, of the Arslantepe Derneği
(www.arslantepedernegi.org) based in Istanbul, is not known. The main shelter
structure was implemented with funding from the Governorship of Malatya
(Frangipane 2010).
Community engagement
The excavation team is in close contact with the community of Orduzu, as most
families have been engaged with the excavations as workers (Frangipane pers.
comm. 2015). In early 2015 ‘Malatya’s Legacy: Arslantepe’ became one of the
projects to be supported by the “Future is in Tourism – Sustainable Tourism
Support Fund”, carried out by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Anadolu
Efes and UNDP (UNDP in Turkey 2015) – the main applicant was the
Arslantepe Destekleme ve Geliştirme Derneği with the Battalgazi Municipality
as partner. The excavation team participated in this project to transmit the
consciousness of the site (Frangipane pers. comm. 2015). The project aim was
to create a sense of ownership in the region, raise awareness of the site and
help the local economy through tourism222.
The project website, called the Italian Archaeological Mission and Eastern
Anatolia (Missione Archeologica Italiana in Anatolia Orientale - MAIO) is
hosted by the University of Rome (web.uniroma1.it/arslantepe/) and provides
information about the history of the excavations, archaeological research, the
222 An education seminar was organised in June 2015, attended by 250 teachers, students and
the public in the Battalgazi district, during which the archaeologist Gülay Sert (who worked at
Çatalhöyük on educational projects) as well as the archaeologist Hülya Çalışkan (executive
member of the Arslantepe Destekleme ve Geliştirme Derneği) (Anayurt Gazetesi 2015). In
October 2015, students from across Malatya were invited to visit Arslantepe and Malatya
Museum where they were informed about the site and the on-going excavations by Gülay Sert,
and Francesca Balossi Restelli, a member of the excavation team (Haberler.com 2015a). The
project was completed in December 2015.
171
new shelter and team members. The website is in Italian only and is not
updated regularly.
3.5.2 Elaiussa Sebaste
Situated in the Ayaş district of Mersin, Elaiussa Sebaste has been excavated
since 1995 by the archaeologist Eugenia Equini Schneider of the University of
Rome. The site contains Roman and Byzantine period architectural remains.
Ongoing excavations have revealed public buildings including a theatre, agora,
temple, and basilicas (Figure 3.49). The main conservation approach has been
to consolidate or restore architectural remains and their fabric after careful
research, and then to make them part of a visitor route. Once excavations are
completed at a sector, the exposed buildings are researched, and then restored
accordingly (Equini Schneider pers. comm. 2015):
Figure 3.49. Site plan of Elaiussa Sebaste (Equini Schneider 2008:304)
Site conservation and presentation
Conservation work includes documentation, consolidation and restoration of
buildings and architectural features such as opus sectile and mosaic floors.
Conservation interventions are strongly linked to the presentation of the site as
172
after the completion of each restoration an internal itinerary is created, and
visitor access is provided guided by information panels and walkways223.
Site documentation during the first years of the project aimed to create a
complete plan of the site, including the theatre and the agora, and was
completed in 1998 (Equini Schneider 2000:237). It is updated with each
excavation season.
Existing and excavated architectural remains, such as the theatre, agora and the
Byzantine complex and the public quarter, were consolidated and restored over
a number of years. Restorations went hand in hand with the excavations so that
there would be several buildings being worked on at any one season.
Precarious structural conditions sometimes required dismantling and
rebuilding individual buildings, as was the case with the colonnaded portico of
the public quarter (Equini Schneider 2001:243).
One of the earliest projects was the theatre, which by the time excavations
began had already been under threat due to “agricultural use of the whole
archaeological area, as well as the modern building activity” (Equini Schneider
1998:392). Initial interventions consisted of small-scale consolidations in the
cavea (Equini Schneider 1999:387), reconstruction of various seats and steps
using limestone and concrete, and filling gaps using cement mortar (Equini
Schneider 2001:242). Conservation work continued until 2006 when it was
included on the visitor route with information and orientation panels (Equini
Schneider 2008:303). Another long-running project was the Byzantine palace
further south where wall consolidations and opus sectile conservation
continued from 2000 until 2012 (Equini Schneider 2002:227, 2014:415).
Restoration of the Byzantine basilica, to the south west of the theatre, was
completed in 1998. Work involved opus sectile conservation and consolidation
223 Conservation can be followed through ERM proceedings –preliminary results have been
published almost every year since the 1998 season and in various Italian publications.
173
of the perimeter walls (Equini Schneider 1999:390, 2000:240) (Figure 3.50).
In 2002, a new project began on the conservation of the port baths, and its
mosaics and walls were consolidated (Equini Schneider 2004:306). In 2005,
the temple, situated to the south west of ancient port and mostly cut off from
other buildings, was linked to the main inter-city road, and a bi-lingual
information panel erected (Equini Schneider 2007:566). More recently, the
Byzantine basilica in the great baths area is being conserved –a project that
involves wall consolidation and opus sectile floor conservation (Equini
Schneider 2015:564).
One of the earlier interventions in the necropolis area, which has been under
regular threat of new development, involved documentation of sarcophagi,
cleaning of various chamber tombs and repositioning of chests and lids (Equini
Schneider 2002:227). Other proposals for the conservation of the necropolis
were related with holistic conservation, particularly concentrating on the
integration of funerary architectures with the landscape and using this
symbiosis as a presentation tool (Morezzi 2008:136).
Figure 3.50. Views from the Agora and Basilica area (the author 2012)
Emanuele Romeo of the Politecnico di Torino worked at Elaiussa Sebaste in
2005-2007 (Re 2006) as part of a project on the conservation and valorisation
of classical and late antique archaeological sites, with Elaiussa Sebaste at its
focus. The project entailed proposals to address a variety of technical,
architectural and environmental issues considering several main risk factors
(state of preservation, urban expansion towards and in the site, climatic
174
conditions, private ownership and land-use) and analysing Elaiussa within its
physical, socio-economical and legislative context (Re 2006:34–35). In a later
project, Romeo focused on the conservation and valorisation of the Byzantine
basilica and the necropolis area with the aim of enhancing their visibility and
ensuring visitor safety. As well as restorations of the ancient remains, the team
engaged in the conversion of an old school building, given to the Italian
mission, into a visitor centre in 2006 (Equini Schneider 2009:181).
Conservation staff
The project has employed professionals of related disciplines since the
beginning of the project. There are long-standing collaborations with experts
from the University of Rome itself, such as the Department of Earth Sciences
and the Department of Restoration Techniques (Equini Schneider 2000:237,
2001:241). The Politecnico di Torino has also been associated especially in the
conservation of the theatre, which was carried out by affiliated architects under
the direction of Emanuele Romeo (Equini Schneider 2008:303), and in other
projects mentioned above. In the late 1990s, the Turkish company Pekerler
İnşaat (Istanbul) was involved in the restoration of the theatre (Equini
Schneider 2000:239). For the past ten years, architectural conservation has
been carried out by an Italian architect and two Turkish restorers (Equini
Schneider pers. comm. 2015).
In the early 2000s, Hüseyin Akıllı from the University of Edirne and his team
(consisting of students) worked on the conservation of Basilica’s opus sectile
floor and on the mosaics of the Agora and the Temple. In 2007, Celâl Küçük
of Art & Restorasyon of Istanbul worked on the opus sectile of the Basilica
(Equini Schneider 2009:181).
Funding
Excavations and restorations are funded by the University of Rome, the Italian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Italian Ministry of Instruction, University
175
and Research. Both of Romeo’s projects on the conservation and valorisation
of Elaiussa Sebaste were funded by the Italian Ministry of Education,
University and Research.
According to the ERM proceedings, the early years of the project were
financially supported by FIAT and the Koç Foundation (seasons 1998-2000)
but there is no further information as to the continuity of their support.
Community engagement
The team organizes annual public meetings for locals, especially focusing on
children and youngsters, to expand on their seasonal work and engage their
interest (Equini Schneider pers. comm.2015). At the same time, locals have
been trained in stonemasonry since the early years to work on architectural
conservation projects (Equini Schneider pers. comm.2015).
The project has two websites/pages (www.antichita.uniroma1.it/node/5854
and elaiussa.uniroma1.it/) hosted by the University of Rome. The first one
provides basic information in Italian about the site, researched buildings, and
team members. The second website (Figure 3.51) is more sophisticated but,
again, data is limited to information on buildings (English), a map showing
excavated areas (but without names of buildings), and general information
about the region (Italian). Most of the tabs do not work and the site is not
updated regularly.
Figure 3.51 Website of Elaiussa Sebaste (elaiussa.uniroma1.it/)
176
3.5.3 Hierapolis
Located in the district of Pamukkale in Denizli, Hierapolis has been
systematically excavated since 1957. The first director of the Archaeological
Mission in Hierapolis (MAIER) was the engineer Paolo Verzone of Turin
Polytecnic, who was succeeded by Daria de Bernardi Ferrero in 1986. From
2000 until 2016, excavations were led by Francesco D’Andria of the
University of Salento, Lecce. The site was inscribed on the World Heritage
List in 1988. Hierapolis contains monumental architectural remains within a
landscape shaped by travertines, thermal springs and earthquakes. Major
buildings unearthed are those along the main road Frontinus Street, the theatre,
Temple of Apollo, Baths Basilica, martyrium, and the tomb of St. Philip
(Figure 3.52).
Figure 3.52 Site plan (Arthur 2012:276, 304)
The focus of excavations has tended to reflect the particular research interests
of the various directors, i.e. the martyrium during the tenure of Verzone, and
the theatre during that of De Bernardi di Ferrero (D'Andria 2006b:114).
Conservation efforts were shaped by two significant factors: the calcareous
deposits (travertines) and mass tourism (D'Andria 2006b:114–115).
Additionally, traces of past earthquakes, considered a significant part of the
history of the site by the Italian team (D’Andria pers. comm. 2011), have
177
informed conservation decisions (in terms of full or partial restorations).
D’Andria stated that, whereas earlier work, begun by Verzone, focused on the
northern part of the city, his team concentrated on the southern part owing to
the new shorter visitor itinerary that started from the southern gate (pers.
comm. 2011).
Site conservation
The theatre at Hierapolis has been one of the primary foci of conservation
efforts224 for the past three decades. Starting from the first report of the 1979
season, conservation activities in the theatre feature in almost every ERM
report and include works on the hyposcaeneum, scaenae frons, as well as the
back wall of the theatre and the gaps in the cavea etc., which are only some of
the interventions carried out during this long period. Major concerns in the
conservation and re-use of the theatre, in addition to the ensuring the structural
soundness of the building, were to enable visitor safety and limit damage
caused by tourists (D'Andria 2006c:85). The most recent restorations, involved
the anastylosis of the stage building, which followed the reconstruction of the
floor of the first level (Figure 3.53) (D'Andria 2008:414–415). Restoration was
completed in 2013 (D'Andria 2015:210).
Figure 3.53 Reconstruction of the floor of the scaenae frons by architect Paolo Mighetto
(D'Andria 2008:422–423)
224 Conservation interventions feature in all the annual ERM reports and primarily centre on
architectural interventions ranging from restoration/anastylosis to structural consolidation.
178
Another key area from the mid-1980s onwards was the necropolis225 and its
individual sarcophagi. Here, work began after detailed documentation of some
1700 sarcophagi (de Bernardi Ferrero 1989:295, 1990:247).
The major aim in the 1990s was the creation of a visitor route along the
Frontinus Street and continuing as far as the theatre. This meant interventions
to buildings along this route, including but not limited to the Doric Building,
Nymphaeum of the Tritons, and the latrine (de Bernardi Ferrero 1995:346,
1996:97–99, 1997:87, 1998:239) –activities that continued into the 2000s.
Conservation work in the 2000s progressed along the route defined between
the agora and the theatre, but from the mid-2000s the focus of the excavation,
and therefore conservation, shifted to the south of the site due to the opening
of the new site entrance (D’Andria pers. comm. 2011). The Gymnasium, at the
southern tip of the city, was one of the buildings where research and
conservation began as a result (D'Andria 2011:81–82). Additionally, the route
between the Temple of Apollo and the Martyrium became another area of
activity (D'Andria 2006a:229) and involved interventions to both buildings
(D'Andria 2009:397, 399). The Bridge of St. Philip was rebuilt using a steel-
frame construction (D'Andria 2010:224–225) (Figure 3.54).
Projects in other parts of the site included the documentation and analysis of
the Cathedral Church (Byzantine cathedral), which began in 2002 and lasted
five years, after which preparations for its conservation began (Romeo 2008b;
D'Andria 2010:217–218). Also from the mid-2000s, mosaic and wall painting
conservation, as well as wall consolidation and shelter constructions, were
carried out in the building remains in the insula 104 (including the Doric
Courtyard House, Manassa House, and the Painted Inscription House) (Figure
3.55).
225 Denizli Museum also carried out restorations on some of the sarcophagi on the northern
necropolis in the 1990s (de Bernardi Ferrero 2001:195)
179
Figure 3.54 Reconstruction/restoration of the Bridge of St Philip (ed. Başgelen 2013:38)
Figure 3.55 Shelters for houses in Insula 104 (D'Andria 2009:406, 2012:493)
Conservation also concentrated on areas along the Frontinus Street, which had
been excavated in the 1960s, for consolidation, reinterpretation, enhanced
documentation purposes (D'Andria 2008:408–409). In 2007, an extensive
metal scaffolding was erected to support the eastern wall of the Baths-Basilica,
which was displaying serious structural deformation (Figure 3.56). The
building has been regularly monitored and necessary interventions carried out,
including filling of gaps, and construction of a similar metal structure to
support a large vault (D'Andria 2015:206).
Figure 3.56 Structural consolidation of the eastern wall of the Baths-Basilica (MAIER 2007:8),
and the vault (D'Andria 2015:216)
In the early 2010s, a new centre of focus was St. Philip’s Tomb. Preliminary
conservation measures involved supporting the tomb with temporary timber
180
posts and partial rebuilding of the church that had been built around the tomb
(D’Andria pers. comm. 2011) (Figure 3.57), followed by an anastylosis of the
templon of the church (D'Andria 2015:213) (Figure 3.58).
Figure 3.57 St. Philip’s Tomb and the church (the author 2011)
Figure 3.58 Anastylosis of the templon of St. Philip’s Church (D'Andria 2015:222)
Restoration activities throughout these decades invariably involved the
removal of calcareous deposits. Examples include, from the early 1990s,
interventions to the Frontinus Street, which was cleared of such deposits (de
Bernardi Ferrero 1996:97), and at the Temple of Apollon (D'Andria 2013:127),
where the deposits were removed manually (Figure 3.59).
Figure 3.59 Manual removal of calcareous deposits (the author 2011)
181
In addition to building restorations, and to further enhance the information on
each individual building, the team also focused on 3D reconstructions of
various buildings (Campagna & Limoncelli 2012) and initiated the Virtual
Hierapolis226 project in 2007, an undertaking that also aimed at facilitating the
understanding of the formation of the city. The project involved the study and
virtual reconstruction of 19 buildings until 2012 (Figure 3.60) (Missione
Hierapolis 2012).
Figure 3.60 Frontinus Street today and its 3D reconstruction (Missione Hierapolis 2012)
One of the significant projects carried out by the Italian team was the Atlas
Hierapolis Project. It aimed to provide a basis for future work and contribute
to strategic planning (D'Andria 2009:401). Carried out by the Institute for
Archaeological and Monumental Heritage (IBAM), the atlas was published in
2007 separately in Italian and Turkish, and was subsequently updated with new
information in 2015227.
Site presentation
Site presentation has been one of the driving forces of the conservation
activities. Visitor routes have been developed from the 1980s onwards and
buildings along them were consolidated or restored, and information panels
installed.
226 See “Virtual Hierapolis” by Caggia & Ismaelli (2010).
227 For both versions see eds. D'Andria, Scardozzi & Spanò (2008); ed. Scardozzi (2015). The
earlier version of the atlas was accessible online in 2015
(http://antares.ibam.cnr.it:8080/atlante/map.phtml), where it was possible to view the
QuickBird Satellite image of the site and obtain information on individual buildings, such as
their periods, physical areas, architectural plans, and photographs.
182
D’Andria put forward the idea of turning Hierapolis into an archaeo-seismic
park, where visitors could follow a designated path to observe historic
earthquakes and their impacts on the environment (D'Andria 2002:101). In the
mid-2000s, three major itineraries were developed (Figure 3.61): the first two
(green and blue) are routes between the Frontinus Gate and the theatre, and
between the Temple of Apollo to the Martyrium of St. Philip respectively. The
third route aims to display the seismic activities that have shaped the
architectural and urban character of the city.
Figure 3.61 The three visitor itineraries at Hierapolis (D'Andria 2006b:115)
Management planning
A management plan for Hierapolis/Pamukkale was prepared in 2002 as part of
the World Bank’s Community Development and Heritage Projects in Turkey.
This preceded the amendment to the Law no:2863. The plan preparation
process was consolidated by an assessment of previous conservation decisions
regarding the site –led by Emre Madran and Nimet Özgönül of METU (Ersoy
2002:49). The lead consultant of the management plan was Akan Mimarlık,
which worked with Turkish and international advisors (Akan Mimarlık 2002).
The plan was not updated but various proposed interventions were carried out.
183
Conservation staff
The ERM reports give detailed information about the academics, professionals
and students (including their names and projects) involved the archaeological
as well as conservation practices. Architects, restorers/conservators and
architectural conservators are typical members of the mission. There is a long-
standing collaboration with Italian architects and architectural students from
the Polytechnic University of Turin, Faculty of Architecture228, who have been
involved with the site since the 1980s, but architects from other Italian
universities (Genoa, Venice, Rome) have also participated over the years.
There are Italian and Turkish restorers/conservators, who deal with mosaics
and wall paintings. In the late 1990s, conservators from the Başkent Vocational
School and the Art and Restoration Institute in Florence were employed, while
in the late 2000s, a team from Istanbul University under the leadership of
Mehmet Uğuryol from Yıldız Technical University and Mario Catania from
Lecce, as well as conservators from the Lecce Fine Arts Academy worked at
the site (de Bernardi Ferrero 1999:263, 2001:195; D'Andria 2009:393; Uğuryol
2013:e125).
Funding
The ERM reports provide ample information on organisations and donors that
fund conservation work at Hierapolis. Research and conservation work are
primarily funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of
Education, University and Research (MIUR) and the National Research
Council (CNR). Individual projects are generally funded by private companies
and more recently by the J.M. Kaplan Fund. Fiat-Tofaş, FOWA (a Turin-based
company), and Vehbi Koç Foundation are three of the long-standing funders
228 For example, the restoration project of the theatre was prepared by architects Paolo
Mighetto, Filippo Masino, Giorgio Sobra, and the engineer Franco Galvagno from the Torino
Polytechnic (ed. Başgelen 2013:35), and a conservation project concerning the Byzantine
cathedral was prepared by Emanuele Romeo of the same university (ed. Romeo 2008:80–102).
184
of conservation work, having supported the site since at least the mid-1990s.
Kömürcüoğlu Mermer, a local company from Denizli, has also been involved
in the conservation. The metal scaffolding against the eastern wall of the Baths-
Basilica, as well as fencing of the site and lighting applications at the theatre,
were supported by the Denizli Governorship 229 (D'Andria 2009:401).
FOWA funded the restoration work of the Denizli Museum including the
sarcophagi from the northern necropolis (de Bernardi Ferrero 2001:195). The
restoration of the stage building of the theatre was financed by the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism (D'Andria 2011:80, 2012:483) as well as FIAT-Tofaş and
Koç Foundation (D'Andria 2015:204). The J.M. Kaplan Fund sponsored the
anastylosis of the Templon of St. Philip’s Church (D'Andria 2015:204). There
is no information about the contribution of the Turin-based Friends of
Hierapolis (Associazione Amici di Hierapolis/Hierapolis Dostları Derneği -
http://www.clubhierapolis.it/).
Community engagement
As one of the longer running archaeological excavations in Turkey, the local
community and archaeological team have strong connections (D’Andria pers.
comm. 2011). Having said that, there is no information relating to activities or
events to engage locals other than those employed as workers in the
archaeological or conservation processes.
The project’s website is hosted by the University of Salento
(www.hierapolis.unisalento.it/home_page) through which information about
the site, buildings, the team and sponsors can be accessed (Figure 3.62). The
section about conservation and restoration works does not have any data. The
229 A protocol was signed between the Denizli Governorship – Provincial Special
Administration and MoCT in 2007, whereby 25% of ticket revenues would be used for the
conservation and restoration of archaeological sites in the area. Hierapolis was one of the
recipients; however, it did not receive as much as was initially agreed (D’Andria pers. comm.
2011).
185
website is in Italian, with a few English pages and some preliminary reports
written in Turkish.
Figure 3.62 Hierapolis project website
3.5.4 Kyme
The site is in the Aliağa district of Izmir. Kyme was investigated in the 19th
century by Demostene Baltazzi and later by a French team led by Salomon
Reinach (Lagona 1993b:146). In 1925, a group of archaeologists and architects
from Prague University, under the direction of J. Nepomucky in collaboration
with Anton Salac, excavated the site (Lagona 1993b:147). Ekrem Akurgal
researched the site in the 1950s followed by excavations by the İzmir
Archaeological Museum in 1979-1981. Vedat İdil of Ankara University
excavated in 1982-1984230. From 1986 until 2008, Sebastiana Lagona of the
University of Catania was the director. Current excavations are led by Antonio
La Marca of the University of Calabria231.
Founded in the mid-11th century BC and the largest Aeolic city, Kyme (Figure
3.63) became an important trade centre in the 4th century BC and remained so
all through the Hellenistic Period and further into the Late Roman and
230 In the season of 1982, a team from the University of Catania, under the directorship of
Sebastiana Lagona investigated the port buildings of the city as part of the project (İdil &
Bingöl 1984:269).
231 Concurrent with the Italian project, Izmir Museum carries out rescue excavations on 3rd
degree archaeological conservation areas owned by various companies (İDÇ, Habaş, Akdeniz
and Batı Çimento), which also fund these excavations.
186
Byzantine periods (La Marca 2010:397). The city was abandoned in the 7th
century AD and the most recent buildings are those of a castle built on the port
in the 12th-13th centuries AD. The excavations have focused primarily on the
theatre, castle, and agora as well as the necropolis.
Figure 3.63 Aerial view of Kyme (La Marca 2016:226)
Site conservation and presentation
Conservation interventions232 at Kyme overlap with excavation work and once
a building is exposed, the consolidation process begins (La Marca pers. comm.
2011). The general approach during wall consolidations has been to distinguish
infills from the original by using bricks and tiles (Lagona 1991:214). In cases
where there was insufficient information about the original design of a
building, the approach was to use technology and materials unrepresentative
of any stylistic or traditional features (Lagona 1993a:311).
In the early years of the excavation, some conservation took place in the 12th
century-castle, which involved consolidation and roof construction on one of
232 Information on conservation comes from ERM reports.
187
the towers (Figure 3.64) (Lagona 1993a:310, 1994:6). Towards the late 1990s,
the focus shifted towards the city centre, to the Colonnaded House where a
partial anastylosis was carried out (Lagona 2000:218).
Figure 3.64 The castle (the author 2011)
From the late 2000s and early 2010s, the team concentrated on creating a more
accessible and visitor-friendly site. The medieval castle and Byzantine church
built within the Agora were two focal points to present the medieval phase of
the site (La Marca 2011:372–373, 2013:308, 310). Interventions consisted of
wall consolidations, infills, wall painting conservation and minor
reconstructions. In 2011, mortar and plaster analysis were carried out on Late
Roman and Byzantine buildings in the castle, to aid future restorations
(Miriello et al. 2011:803). Another project involved the theatre, where the aim
was to make it accessible with a view to enabling its re-use as a cultural venue
(La Marca 2011:371).
The former director of Kyme, Lagona, was particularly interested in building
an archaeological museum and secured the collaboration of the Aliağa
Municipality for its construction in the late 1990s (Lagona 1998:842). An
architect from the team (Roberto Parapetti) designed the building, which, in
addition to a display area, would incorporate a conservation laboratory, storage
facilities, halls for cultural activities and the excavation house. The required
land was allocated by the local municipality, and the construction partially
funded by the University of Catania (Lagona 2003:487). The conservation
laboratory and storage facilities were completed in 1999 and the excavation
188
house was completed the following year; however, the museum remains
closed233. In lieu of an actual museum, the current director has been planning
on creating a virtual 3D museum in collaboration with the municipality to
showcase Aeolian cities and their finds (La Marca pers. comm. 2011).
Conservation staff
Architectural documentation and conservation were carried out by architects
and specialists who were part of the excavation team. Artefact conservation
was carried out by experts from the Italian Central Institute for Restoration and
other Italian conservators in collaboration with the Başkent Vocational School
and Izmir Archaeological Museum (Lagona 1992:96, 1994:6).
Funding
The project was supported by the permit holding universities. The main
commercial sponsor of the project is the private company (automotive sector)
Eldor Turkey in Izmir (www.eldor.com.tr) (La Marca pers. comm. 2011), part
of the international Eldor Group founded by the Italian Pasquale Forte. Rescue
excavations are carried out with the financial support of the companies IDÇ,
Habaş, Batı Çimento and Akdeniz. Information panels were renewed recently
with funding from the Izmir Development Agency.
The "Insieme per Kyme - Archeologia nel Mediterraneo" (Kyme Için El Ele)
association was established in Italy to promote the excavations in Kyme,
encourage collaboration with Mediterranean countries, and contribute to the
conservation of archaeological sites through various cultural activities
(MAIKE - Missione Archeologica Italiana Kyme Eolica n.d.).
233 Although excavation finds are stored in this museum building, its status was uncertain. The
museum was emptied of these finds in 2015 on grounds of structural safety (Haberler.com
2015b).
189
Community engagement
The project has a website (www.kyme.info/joomla/index.php) with detailed
visual and written information about the site and the various building;
however, the information is in Italian only.
3.5.5 Yumuktepe
Situated in the city centre of Mersin, the mound of Yumuktepe was first
excavated in 1937-39 and 1947 by John Garstang, best known for his seminal
work on the Hittites and as the founding director of the British Archaeological
Institute at Ankara (Burney 2004:91). New excavations began in 1993 as a
joint project led by Veli Sevin of Istanbul University and Isabella Caneva, who
was then at the University of Rome (Sevin, Caneva & Köroğlu 1997:27).
Caneva, now at the University of Lecce, became the sole director in 2000234.
The mound contains stratigraphic layers spanning nine millennia, making it a
rare site of a long uninterrupted inhabitancy (Figure 3.65). Excavated building
remains are generally of mudbrick. After the first excavations in the early 20th
century, the site was reshaped into terraces to enable its use as a public park,
which involved planting of trees, construction of a playground and concrete
street furniture.
The aims of the new excavations were described in the first ERM report of the
joint project as (Sevin & Caneva 1995:29):
…to excavate the mound more extensively, which during the early
excavations had been insufficiently investigated; to base the
chronology of the site on solid foundations; and to convert this famous
site into a historical-archaeological park.
234 Caneva is collaborating with Gülgün Köroğlu of Mimar Sinan University, who supervises
the later period excavations at the site.
190
Figure 3.65 Stratigraphy of Yumuktepe (Caneva & Jean 2016:17)
Site conservation and presentation
Conservation235 is limited to post-season trench covering, and more recently,
in some areas, the team has been applying a technique Caneva says they
adapted from Mehmet Özdoğan, in that mudbrick walls are capped with new
mud bricks as a preventive measure (pers. comm. 2012).
The directors’ intention, since the first year of the project, went beyond the
common scope of archaeological excavations in that they wished to put the site
at “the disposal of science and humanity” (Sevin & Caneva 1996:72). To that
end, as early as the first year, drawings of the “Yumuktepe Archaeological
Park Project” (author Prof. M. Taner Tarhan) were presented at the ERM. In
this park project, “in addition to conservation, the main idea is to have visitors
travel in a time tunnel of 8-9 thousand years and help develop an awareness
for history” (Figure 3.66) (Sevin & Caneva 1995:36). The directors intended
235 There is limited information on conservation. The ERM proceedings provide little, and
although artefact conservation is mentioned in some, there is no information on any work
regarding exposed architectural remains.
191
to present the site’s significance as one of the oldest sites in the region with
continuous inhabitancy until the Middle Ages.
Figure 3.66 Archaeological park project of 1993 (Sevin & Caneva 1995:38)
During the first years of the new excavations, the team worked to remove 20th
century interventions, starting with the concrete platforms and walls and other
inharmonious elements that damaged the site (Sevin et al. 1997:31).
For the last few years, the team has been collaborating with Mersin
University’s Department of Architecture for the overall presentation of the site.
The Department of Architecture prepared an architectural project for the
archaeological park in 2004 –the main theme was to create a ‘time staircase’
displaying all the periods at the site, including the Neolithic, Chalcolithic,
Hittite, and Byzantine remains (Caneva pers. comm. 2012). In 2014, the same
department received a grant from the Çukurova Development Agency’s
Rehabilitation of Production and Environmental Infrastructure Programme
(TR62 / 14 / ÜRÇEP) for the “Yumuktepe and Vicinity Conservation,
Presentation and Development of Tourism Infrastructure Project” (Mersin
University 2014). The excavation team participated in the project that aimed
to contribute to the development of regional sustainable tourism by raising
192
awareness of the site, enhancing access, establishing a visitor centre and
developing new tools for the promotion of the site and the area (Yağmur 2014).
In particular, the project engaged in creating an interactive system whereby
visitors could view the historical development of the site. The visitor centre,
located to the south of the mound inside an urban park, opened in October 2016
(Mersin Siyaset 2016).
Conservation staff
Turkish architects from Istanbul Technical University as well as Italian
architects worked at Yumuktepe over the years (Sevin et al. 1997:23; Sevin
2001:95). Artefact conservation was similarly undertaken by specialists of
both countries including Sait Başaran and his assistants, from the Department
of Moveable Cultural Heritage Conservation at the Istanbul University
(Isabella Caneva, Gülgün Köroğlu, Kemalettin Köroğlu, Tülay Özaydın
2005:209). More recently, the conservation team consisting of two
conservators was led by the architect/topographer Emanuela Brunacci (Caneva
pers. comm. 2012), who has been working at Yumuktepe since the early years
of the project.
Funding
Excavation and conservation funding comes from the universities of Lecce and
Rome, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mimar Sinan Fine Arts
University. There is reference to Vehbi Koç Foundation’s Suna & İnan Kıraç
Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations but no information is given
as to the scope of their contribution (Caneva & Köroğlu 2009:151). More
recently, the Çukurova Development Agency funded the “Yumuktepe and
Vicinity Conservation, Presentation and Development of Tourism
Infrastructure Project” carried out by the Mersin University and Toroslar
Municipality in collaboration with the excavation team.
193
Community engagement
The workers of the excavation come from the local Demirtaş district and their
relatives sometimes visit the site (Caneva pers. comm. 2012). The visitor
centre and associated activities aim to contribute to local development (Mersin
Siyaset 2016). The project does not have a website.
3.6 Japan
3.6.1 Kaman-Kalehöyük
Located in the Kaman district of Kırıkkale, Kalehöyük has been excavated
since 1986 by Sochihiro Omura from The Middle Eastern Culture Center in
Japan –Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology236. Kalehöyük is a mound
with stratigraphic layers dating from the Early Bronze Age (2300-1200 BC) to
the Ottoman Period (15th-17th centuries AD) (Omura 2011:1096) (Figure 3.67).
Excavated architectural remains are primarily of stone but mudbrick walls
have also been discovered.
Figure 3.67 Stratigraphic layers of the site (model in the site museum) (the author 2015)
The Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology has made Kaman-Kalehöyük
its centre and constructed the institute’s building south of the mound,
immediately to the west of the Çağırkan Village (Figure 3.68). The institute
was built in this location “so that those closest to the site and archive can enjoy
236 There is close collaboration with JIAA’s other excavations in the area (Büklükale and
Yassıhöyük).
194
it, value it, become involved with it, and help to preserve it…” (JIAA n.d.).
Together with the Kaman-Kalehöyük Archaeological Museum, they form a
unique archaeological complex in Turkey (Figure 3.69).
Figure 3.68 Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology (the author 2015)
Figure 3.69 JIAA and the site museum (Google Earth)
At Kaman-Kalehöyük, conservation was part of the excavation programme
from the beginning, but the focus has been primarily on artefact conservation
rather than site conservation, which is achieved through simple techniques,
such as basic shelters and more recently the use of geotextile. The director has
been particularly keen in making Kaman-Kalehöyük a learning-hub for
conservation.
Kaman-Kalehöyük Archaeological Museum
The museum is described in this context because its existence is strongly linked
to the Japanese-run archaeological research at Kaman-Kalehöyük. Omura
explains that the idea for the museum was a result of his continuous interaction
with children during the weekly classes he organizes for them (Omura 2010):
195
… it is sometimes possible to understand, among other things, why a
particular culture flourished and how it declined and ended. For me,
this is the most fulfilling moment in an excavation. When I talked of
such matters in my classes, using the artifacts and features of the
Kaman-Kalehöyük site as examples, I noticed how much more
interested the children became when the actual artifacts were placed in
front of them. This experience was at the back of my mind when I first
conceived the idea of building a museum.
Completed in 2009 and officially opened in 2010, the museum was designed
by the Japanese Ishimoto Architectural & Engineering Firm Inc
(www.ishimoto.co.jp/e/index.html), which also designed JIAA’s new
buildings within the same precinct. Construction was carried out by another
Japanese company (Kajima Construction) (www.jiaa-
kaman.org/en/announce_old.html; (Boccia Paterakis 2011:10) and was
financed by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ODA – Official
Development Assistance), while the display cases and exhibits were funded by
Turkey and designed by the Japanese exhibition specialist Hirofumi Nagakane
(Dig Inc.), who also trained the museum staff on appropriate methodologies
(The Japan Foundation 2009; Omura 2010).
The museum, which resembles a mound and is inspired by the grid excavation
technique (ISHIMOTO 2015), houses a library, offices, several laboratories
for examination and conservation of artefacts, and storage areas, and has a
Japanese garden (Figure 3.70).
Figure 3.70 Exterior and interior of the museum (the author 2015)
196
Site conservation
The goals of the conservation programme237 at Kaman-Kalehöyük are
essentially three-fold: in-situ and laboratory treatment of exposed remains and
artefacts; conservation education and dissemination of conservation
knowledge; and conservation of the museum collection (Boccia Paterakis
2015). The team’s main approach is preventive conservation, which focuses
on the reasons for deterioration to “reduce the potential for damage to
excavated materials and associated information, through non-interventive
measures” (Carroll & Wharton 1996:23).
On-site conservation is primarily achieved through simple shelters and the use
of geotextile. Standing on timber posts and covered with corrugated galvanized
sheets, these shelters are built to provide off-season protection of excavated
areas, and are dismantled before the excavation and re-constructed at the end
of each season (Figure 3.71) (Carroll 1998:157–159). The very deep northern
trench is, except where excavations are ongoing, almost entirely covered with
this type of shelter (Figure 3.72).
Figure 3.71 Shelters of corrugated sheets covering excavated areas (the author 2015)
237 Reference to conservation work in the ERM reports is very limited with almost no mention
save for the presence of conservators (1994, 2001, 2009 seasons); however, regular articles
published in the JIAA’s annual journal titled “Anatolian Archaeological Studies” and other
papers written by team members elsewhere, provide information about the structure and
methodologies of conservation.
197
Figure 3.72 Shelter covering an excavated trench (the author 2015)
Conservation staff
Conservators have been part of the excavation team since the early years of the
project (Carroll & Wharton 1996:22). In 1991, the excavation director invited
Glenn Wharton, an American conservator, to build a conservation laboratory
at the site and develop courses to disseminate knowledge and experience about
archaeological conservation (Wharton 2010:33). Wharton, who worked as
director of conservation at the site from 1991 until 2004, established the
laboratory in 1993 and was instrumental in shaping the conservation
programme and in structuring the conservation team. He also penned, from
1997 until 2004, the “Conservation Director’s Report” that was published in
the JIAA’s annual journal Anatolian Archaeological Studies. In 2008, the
archaeological conservator Alice Boccia Paterakis took over as director of
conservation.
The present formation of the conservation team is roughly the same as when
Wharton first established it (Wharton 2005:98), which consists of a field
conservator, preventive conservator and several assistant conservators, all of
whom report to the head of conservation/conservation director. The latter is
more of a supervisory role and usually involves 2-3 weeks on-site presence.
The field conservator is responsible for all conservation work for the entire
season, including training of a conservator, supervising lab projects and on-
site interventions (JIAA 2014). The preventive conservator works in the
laboratory and is responsible for monitoring the storage and the micro-climate
198
etc. This team works for two months at each of the three Japanese excavations
(Boccia Paterakis pers. comm. 2015). More recently, a conservator from the
Gazi University, Department of Conservation of Cultural Heritage has also
become involved in the project (Boccia Paterakis pers. comm. 2015).
Other than their regular work in the laboratory, the conservation team assists
the excavation team in the lifting and consolidation of fragile objects on site
(Lipcsei 2006:106; Boccia Paterakis 2015). If the excavation team come across
a fragile item or fabric, such as burned wood, the Field Conservator goes to the
site (Boccia Paterakis pers. comm. 2015).
In line with the aims of the conservation team, which is to provide
“conservation education for conservators, archaeologists, and related
specialists” (Boccia Paterakis 2015), a routine activity of the team has been to
offer field schools and workshops on a variety of subjects (such as field courses
on archaeological conservation in 1995, ceramics conservation in 1998, bronze
conservation in 1999, spot testing in 2010) and to organize symposia for
students and professionals working on artefact conservation in Turkey
(Wharton 2010:35–36; Boccia Paterakis 2011). There is also an annual training
programme for conservators from the regional conservation centres across
Turkey (Boccia Paterakis pers. comm. 2015). In addition, the conservation
team runs an annual conservation student internship programme whereby
students are able to study specific conservation issues in relation to the site
(Boccia Paterakis 2011).
Funding
Archaeological excavations and conservation work are funded by Japanese
public and private funds such as Japan Keirin Association, Seki Memorial
Foundation for the Promotion of Science and Technology, Yomiuri Shinbun
199
Osaka Headquarters, and the Sumitomo Foundation238 (JIAA 2016). The Japan
Foundation, an organization concerned with international cultural exchange
programmes, has also been supporting the project through its Arts and Cultural
Exchange programme (The Japan Foundation 2016).
The site museum was constructed with funding from the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (ODA – Official Development Assistance). JIAA’s 20
guidelines were published with funding from the Edward Waldo Forbes Fund
of the Freer Gallery of Art and Smithsonian Institution.
Community engagement
Outreach plays a significant role within the regular excavation programme.
The village of Çağırkan, situated 1.5km south of the site, has close ties with
the Kaman-Kalehöyük project. The director has been giving archaeology and
culture classes to local children from the first year of the project onwards,
focusing on how to work at an archaeological excavation (Omura 2010). After
the opening of the Kaman-Kalehöyük Museum, the director’s sessions with
children began to include this venue and allowed him to present the site in a
different light (Omura 2010). Since then, the team, JIAA and the General
Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums, in partnership with the
museum, have been organizing activities for teachers, women, children, and
specialized courses for the museum staff (kalehoyukarkeolojimuzesi.gov.tr).
Kaman-Kalehöyük excavation does not have a separate website but instead is
briefly introduced within the JIAA’s website (www.jiaa-
kaman.org/en/excavation.html). The website is in English and Japanese. There
is also a blog on conservation activities at Kaman-Kalehöyük
238 The latter was established by various Japanese companies as a grant-making non-profit
organization in 1991, and since 2003 has a dedicated grant for the conservation of cultural
heritage located outside of Japan, of which Kaman Kalehöyük project is a recipient. Especially
in the past decade, the foundation has aided the conservation of the site almost every year
(2.000.000 yen –app. 17.500 USD) (Sumitomo Foundation n.d.).
200
(kamanconservation.blogspot.com.tr/), which since 2010 is publishing about
two posts per year about various treatments and developments at the lab.
3.7 United Kingdom
3.7.1 Çatalhöyük
Çatalhöyük, a prehistoric site near the Çumra district of Konya, was first
excavated by the British archaeologist James Mellaart over four seasons in
1961-1965239. New archaeological research started in 1993 under the direction
of Ian Hodder (Cambridge University, then Stanford University) with
archaeological surveys carried out until 1995 followed by excavations. The site
consists of two mounds (West Mound and East Mound) that contain well-
preserved remains from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic periods (Figure 3.73).
Figure 3.73 Site plan (The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:9)
The nature of architecture entails wall-paintings, mudbrick, human and animal
remains, all very fragile when exposed. The site was added to Turkey’s World
Heritage Site Tentative List in 2009 and was subsequently inscribed on the
World Heritage List in 2012. Since the beginning of the new excavations, the
project has invited and attracted large numbers of experts and researchers
239 Conservation of unearthed buildings was not one of the priorities of Mellaart’s excavations,
and there were losses of wall surfaces, wall-paintings and plasters once they were revealed but
especially so in the two years when no excavation took place. Although exposed buildings
were not conserved, wall paintings and reliefs were taken to the museum in Ankara following
some in situ conservation interventions (Matero 2000:76, 79).
201
working in conservation, heritage management, site presentation and public
archaeology.
Based on a ‘three-pronged’ programme incorporating excavation, conservation
and presentation of the site240 (Matero & Moss 2004:214; Atalay et al. 2010:8),
an ‘integrated conservation strategy’ was developed through the close
partnership of conservators and archaeologists, in which decisions of where to
excavate and what to present to the public were made in liaison with
conservation requirements (Atalay et al. 2010:8). Soon after the new project
began, Frank Matero devised site conservation principles (Hodder pers. comm.
2015). His conservation programme aimed to develop new techniques and
guidelines for mudbrick and site conservation, while at the same time creating
a training ground for practitioners and students (Matero 2000:80).
Site conservation
The two main conservation techniques were shelters and mudbrick
consolidation while in some cases buildings were fully backfilled or
temporarily reburied between seasons with the use of sandbags and textiles.
Temporary and permanent shelters have been constructed since the first years
of the project to enable conservation, provide a more comfortable environment
for archaeologists to work in, and create a presentable and accessible site. An
early example is the tent-like shelter, designed by Lindsay Falck, covering
Building 5. Constructed in 1999 to allow visitors to view the building (Figure
3.74) (Falck 1999), it stayed in use until 2008, when it was dismantled during
the construction of the North Shelter.
240 The number of Çatalhöyük reports in the ERM proceedings is minimal, and almost all of
the information regarding conservation interventions come either from the excavation’s
Archive Reports, which are on the official excavation website (www.catalhoyuk.com) –where
some reports have Turkish abstracts or a Turkish version– or from articles penned by team
members as well as the interviews carried out with the director and lead conservator as part of
this research.
202
The two permanent shelters, both of which were designed by Atölye Mimarlık,
an architectural office from Istanbul, cover expansive areas on the East Mound.
The South Shelter (Figure 3.75), built in 2003, has a steel frame structure and
a fiberglass covering material with removeable side panels, while the second
shelter (North Shelter, previously known as 4040 after the area it covered),
built in 2008 (Figure 3.76), has a timber frame clad with polycarbonate whose
sides can be adjusted depending on weather conditions (Atalay et al. 2010:9).
The shelters continue to be monitored for their effectiveness (Lingle pers.
comm. 2015) and more recently the North Shelter was modified to enhance
water drainage and create “a more stable environment” (Lingle 2013:205).
Figure 3.74 Shelter above Building 5 when it was built (Hodder 1999b)
Figure 3.75 South Shelter (left) (Omacan 2009:34); (right) (the author 2015)
203
Figure 3.76 The North Shelter (left) (Omacan 2009:38); interior (right) (the author 2015)
One of the major issues of conservation at Çatalhöyük has been the
conservation of mudbrick walls, very difficult to preserve once exposed,
especially with the added microclimate within the shelters. In the early years,
Frank Matero developed a strategic three-phase plan for treatment of exposed
buildings and surfaces (Figure 3.77) (Matero 2000:80) which involved
problem assessment, documentation and intervention, and interpretation and
display.
Figure 3.77 The strategic plan for site conservation devised by F. Matero (Matero 2000:80)
Various methods to conserve mudbrick in situ were developed and tested by
Matero and his team, including injection grouting and the perlite-vermiculite
204
fill for temporary reburials, which was applied on Building 5 ((Matero & Moss
2004:219, 224-225). Despite its success, especially with regards to Building 5,
it was subsequently considered more feasible to concentrate on the use of local
building techniques and local clay in the conservation of mudbrick241 and
capping tests were made using local clay (McArthur 2009:143–146).
A new experimental capping project began in 2010, with various trials on
Building 5 under the North Shelter and Building 4 under the South Shelter
involving the use of marl and lime wash (Lingle 2013:205–207, 2014:161). In
2013 Matero’s grouting system was replaced with a different fill that yielded
better results and was envisaged to be more durable and visually more
harmonious242 (Lingle 2013: 204).
Site monitoring includes exposed remains, shelters, visitor paths, and the water
table, which are carried out daily, monthly or annually depending on the
indicator (The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2011:73–75). More recently,
in 2014, the conservation team initiated a “Site-wide condition survey” for the
monitoring of the site (as part of the World Heritage Site monitoring process),
in collaboration with the GIS team, a conservator (Chris Cleere), and two
researchers from METU (Göze Akoğlu and Elif Sırt) (Lingle 2014:159). The
survey resulted in a common deterioration terminology including severity of
decay forms. The system will be used to observe information about the
deterioration patterns and conservation histories of each exposed wall.
Exposed buildings are being monitored each year through condition surveys,
241 The cost of synthetic polymers, used in the periodic maintenance of Building 5, and the
uncertainty of their long-term impacts, are two reasons cited for this new direction (Pye &
Çamurcuoğlu Cleere 2009:140–141; Atalay et al. 2010:10).
242 This new method was based on conservator Chris Cleere’s experiences at Chedworth
Roman Villa in the UK, where it had proved to be successful (Lingle 2013:204).
205
more recently with the use of 3D images developed by the 3D Team243 (Lingle
pers. comm. 2015).
Site presentation
Interpreting the vast amount of data that is being accumulated through the
excavation at Çatalhöyük and presenting the site to specialists and non-
specialists alike have been significant parts of the project. A visitor centre, the
site itself, digital and published materials serve as media whereby Çatalhöyük
is presented to locals and visitors.
The visitor centre was built in the early 2000s and has been an information
outlet. Periodically changed displays allow for new information to be presented
and enable the team to make use of new presentation techniques, such as the
texture board, installed in collaboration with the conservator Ashley Lingle, to
enable visitors to touch reconstructed items such as mudbrick and ceramics
(Figure 3.78). Parallel to the changes in the visitor centre, the signage of the
excavated areas under the shelters as well as visitor walkways were altered to
accommodate new information on recently exposed layers.
Figure 3.78 The texture board designed by the Visualisation Team in 2013 (the author 2015);
the new information panels designed by the Visualisation Team in 2013 (the author 2015)
243 In 2009, a team from the University of California, Merced, under the direction of Maurizio
Forte began the 3D documentation and reconstruction of the site, as well as the recording of
the archaeological excavation process, all of which will also aid in data interpretation (Hodder
& et al.:128–132).
206
In 2002, the reconstruction of a Neolithic house was completed, situated close
to the excavation house (Figure 3.79). Carried out as an exercise in
experimental archaeology (Doughty & Orbaşlı 2007:51), it helps visitors in
their interpretation of the site and is also used for educational workshops. The
house does not reconstruct a building that was excavated at the site but rather
displays their common architectural features (Orbaşlı & Doughty 2004).
Figure 3.79 The Experimental House at Çatalhöyük (the author 2015)
The Site Visualisation Team works on a number of issues, such as the displays
at the site and Visitor Centre and making them more attractive to different
groups of visitors, creating guidebooks and brochures, and researching visitor
behaviour both on-site and in the centre. For example, visitor trends have been
researched through a number of means, such as questionnaires, interviews,
comment books and since 2012 includes a visual/spatiotemporal aspect in
which participating visitors’ movements are tracked by a GPS device while
they themselves record their route with supplied cameras (Hodder & et al.
2013:292–298).
Management planning
Çatalhöyük Research Project’s long-term aim has been described as “to situate
the conservation and presentation of the site within long-term planning that has
strong participation from a variety of stakeholder communities.” (Atalay et al.
2010:8). Corresponding to this aim was their decision to prepare a management
207
plan for the site, which preceded the changes in the Law no. 2863 that defined
management plans for the first time.
The first management plan for Çatalhöyük was prepared in 2004 as part of the
Mediterranean-wide TEMPER Project in 2002-2004244 and was written by the
team leader Aylin Orbaşlı (Oxford Brookes University) together with the
TEMPER project manager Louise Doughty (University of Cambridge), and
several Çatalhöyük project members. The plan considered the site part of a
wider landscape and aimed to provide its sustainable development while
enhancing site presentation by fostering community involvement (Orbaşlı &
Doughty 2004). Archaeological research, conservation, visitor management
and training were some of the issues for which policies were developed, after
which eight projects were identified, in addition to the action plan, of which
World Heritage Site application was one.
Following Çatalhöyük’s listing on the Tentative List in 2009, preparations for
a new management plan began as part of the WHS nomination process245. The
planning process was initiated by the Directorate General for Cultural Heritage
and Museums in collaboration with Ian Hodder, and the plan was prepared by
a team consisting of “experts of city planning, archaeology, architecture, art
history, management, economy and public administration in coordination with
the head of excavation.” (The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:3). The
new plan defined management strategies for Archaeological Excavations and
Researches, Visitor Management and Presentation, Tourism and Promotion,
Education, Participation and Local Development, Accessibility, and Risk
244 The EU-funded project aimed at raising awareness of prehistoric sites in the Mediterranean
through five case study sites, one of which was Çatalhöyük (eds. Hodder & Doughty 2007:1–
7). For further information see Doughty (2003a, 2003b, 2004).
245 MoCT requested that the nomination dossier be drafted by the Çatalhöyük Research Project
and this was welcomed by the team (Human 2015:172).
208
Management. It was finalized in mid-2013, after Çatalhöyük’s inscription on
the World Heritage List (Human 2015:175).
Conservation staff
Conservation was an important component of the excavations at Çatalhöyük
right from the beginning, as Ian Hodder points out: “specific to Çatalhöyük is
that art is very integrated in the architecture of Çatalhöyük, which poses a
different sort of problem and necessitates that you have a conservator at the
site.” (pers. comm. 2015). Various teams from different institutions have been
involved with Çatalhöyük over the years, working on a variety of issues
ranging from buildings, wall paintings and small finds.
There are essentially three major periods, each directed by a different
conservator. The first conservation team at Çatalhöyük was led by Frank
Matero from the University of Pennsylvania, who continued to work at the site
in 1993-1999 (Orbaşlı & Doughty 2004:28). Together with Lindsay Falck, and
Catherine Myers from the Architectural Conservation Laboratory of
University of Pennsylvania, he set up a conservation system soon after
excavations began.
The second period begins in 2002-3, when a team from the University College
London, led by Elizabeth Pye, began working with conservators from Cardiff
University and Mimar Sinan University (Pye & Çamurcuoğlu Cleere 2009;
The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2011:63). In the interim, Kent Severson
served as the first on-site artefact conservator in 1999-2001. Adopting a
holistic approach, they aimed at merging conservation and archaeological
work at the site by “working on structures and artefacts, using preventive and
remedial techniques, combining research and practice, working with students,
specialists and the local community, and attempting to work as sustainably as
possible by training future conservators, promoting conservation in Turkey,
and testing local materials and traditional techniques.” (Pye & Çamurcuoğlu
Cleere 2009).
209
UCL worked at Çatalhöyük until Pye’s retirement in 2010, and since then
Ashley Lingle from Cardiff University has been the senior conservator (Lingle
pers. comm. 2015). During this period, Hodder also invited conservator Chris
Cleere to Çatalhöyük and over four years he provided external advice
regarding conservation issues at the site (Hodder pers. comm. 2015). In 2014,
experts from METU were invited to conduct a site monitoring study. This
collaboration also led to a potential multi-disciplinary action team that would
step in during off-season emergency situations when the conservation team
would not be at the site; however, this system has not yet been activated
(Hodder pers. comm. 2015).
At present, there are 4-5 UCL and Cardiff University students, with occasional
volunteers from Turkish universities, working in Çatalhöyük, where
undergraduates can stay for four weeks and graduates –MSc in Conservation–
can stay for 8 weeks.
Identifying appropriate methodologies for site presentation has been a crucial
part of the project, and various techniques were developed by various teams
since the early years including experts from the Science Museum of
Minnesota, UCL (Atalay et al. 2010:14). In the early years Orrin Shane from
the Science Museum of Minnesota led site presentation efforts including the
visitor centre and development of educational programme (Hodder 2000:3).
More recently, in 2009, a group of experts from Southampton University and
the University of York, in collaboration with Ege University, began work as
the “Site Visualisation Team” (Hodder & et al. 2013:289), initially led by
Stephanie Moser and now by Sara Perry.
Funding
The excavation has had more or less the same sponsors since 1996 (Hodder
pers. comm. 2015). Other than funding received from the The British Institute
at Ankara and affiliated universities in the USA, UK, and other countries, the
210
major sponsors of the project are Yapı Kredi, Boeing and Shell with Merko,
Thames Water and Templeton Foundation246 (Hodder 2011:947).
In addition to major corporate sponsors, local companies Konya Şeker and
Konya Çimento have supported the project. The Friends of Çatalhöyük and the
Turkish Friends of Çatalhöyük are listed as sponsors between 2000-2006 (The
Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2011:61–62).
Conservation has been funded by not-for-profit organisations, commercial
companies, the EU, and affiliated organisations. Of the not-for-profit
organisations (Global Heritage Fund, World Monuments Fund and the Samuel
H. Kress Foundation), GHF became involved in 2006 and funded conservation
interventions on buildings, as well as community related projects (Global
Heritage Fund n.d.).
Examples of supported conservation work at Çatalhöyük include the North
Shelter, which was jointly funded by a number of organisations, including Yapı
Kredi, Boeing, Shell, Selcuk University, Turkish Cultural Foundation, Samuel
H. Kress Foundation, Marth Joukowsky Foundation, and the GHF. Some
subsequent work on it was funded by the Hedef Alliance (Hodder 2012:35).
As mentioned previously, the first management plan for Çatalhöyük was
prepared through the EU-funded TEMPER Project.
Community engagement
There has been interest in the local community since the early days of the
project. Hodder thought it was important to educate people to stop looting and
wished to engage them in the science and conservation aspects of the project
(Hodder pers. comm. 2015). A plethora of activities and projects have been
carried out since then that are either related with or carried out with local
246 For a conscise list of funding bodies and sponsors, as well as the amounts of total support
between 2005 and 2010, see The Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2011:60-62).
211
communities, which essentially had three main dimensions: engaging the
community in the interpretation of archaeological data, educating them in
archaeology and heritage, and working with them to determine joint research
goals so as to make the project more relevant to them.
In the 1990s, ethnographic work at Çatalhöyük by Ayfer Bartu247 and David
Shankland248 helped shape the scope and goals of the project, which resulted
in the concept of the ‘archaeological site’ to be widened “to further include
local communities in the Çatalhöyük research by working with local people to
develop research questions that meet community needs.” (Atalay et al.
2010:12). Their research also aimed at understanding the impact of the project
on the locals.
There were education activities, including slide presentations targeting local
women and children. In addition, Ayfer Bartu initiated a library in the
Küçükköy village (The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:35–36).
Another education-related community undertaking was the TEMPER
Project249, which resulted in educational materials, prepared by Ayfer Bartu,
Gülay Sert and İdil Keser, to be used in local schools and by teachers across
Turkey (Doughty 2003a; Atalay et al. 2010:12).
Community projects developed further when in 2006 Sonia Atalay started a
new project using a community-based participatory research methodology
(CBPR). By conducting interviews and discussions with locals of six nearby
villages, Atalay aimed to make the project more relevant to villagers by
encouraging them to develop their own questions about the site and what they
hoped to learn (Atalay et al. 2010:12–13; Atalay 2010). This process resulted
247 See Bartu (1999, 2000), Bartu Candan (2007).
248 See Shankland (1999, 2000).
249 The project process also involved heritage management workshops, trainings and a major
conference. For further information see Doughty (2003b, 2003a, 2004).
212
in the creation of a comic series, a newsletter, an annual festival where people
could visit the site and engage with project members, and create their own
displays at the Visitor Centre (Figure 3.80). Also developed were an internship
programme and a community theatre (Atalay 2010:421).
Trainings days (archaeology workshops) have been organised by Gülay Sert
since 2002 – daily sessions continuing for about a month – for children living
in the Konya province as well as other parts of Turkey. More recently a
separate programme has been initiated for adults, including civil servants and
teachers (Hodder & et al.:260; Hodder & et al.:9). The programmes, which
have included handicraft workshops and even experience of actual excavation
on Mellaart’s spoil heaps, are designed to introduce children and adults to
Çatalhöyük and prehistoric sites in general in a way that they can relate to such
sites (for example by informing them of the buildings and economy250 (Figure
3.81) (Hodder 2012:36).
Figure 3.80 “Köyden Görüntüler” exhibition at the Çatalhöyük Museum (the author 2015)
Figure 3.81 Archaeology workshop in 2015 (the author 2015)
250 The choice of topics was based on the interest of the younger population on contemporary
issues (Hodder & et al. 2014:225).
213
During the course of the excavations, local women were also trained in
conservation and helped the conservation team (Figure 3.82) (Çamurcuoğlu
Cleere & Felter 2006).
A recent study involving the local community was carried out in 2013-15 and
aimed to perform an oral history of the Çatalhöyük excavations focusing
specifically on the local workers associated with the project. Carried out
through individual interviews, the objective was to document their views,
experiences and memories relating to the excavation – which unlike the
scientific team members were not recorded previously – and thereby to create
a “more inclusive and accessible” recording strategy for the project (Hodder &
et al. 2014:226).
Figure 3.82 Local women engaged in conservation (Çatalhöyük Research Project)
The Çatalhöyük project has a dedicated website (www.catalhoyuk.com) in
English and Turkish, though the number of pages in Turkish is considerably
less. The project website has continued to develop since 2000, and has been
fully revamped in 2016 with a simpler design that created a research portal for
all scientific aspects of the project, including the database, archive reports etc.,
which were previously also accessible but more dispersed (Figure 3.83). The
new website provides detailed information about the site, the buildings, and
conservation practices, and offers the option of downloading guides (English
and Turkish) and annual newsletters.
214
Figure 3.83 Çatalhöyük’s most recent website
3.8 USA
3.8.1 Aphrodisias
The site, located in the Geyre district of Aydın, was excavated initially during
a French expedition led by Paul Gaudin 1904-05 and 1913, and later by an
Italian expedition led by Giulio Jakobi in 1937-45 (Öztürk 2014:222). The first
systematic excavations began under the direction of the archaeologist Kenan
Erim of New York University, in 1961. Upon Erim’s death, R.R.R. Smith of
University of Oxford succeeded as director in 1991. The site was inscribed on
the World Heritage Site Tentative List in 2009.
The main buildings within the excavated town centre, which had been
inhabited from the 1st century BC until the 7th century AD, consist of the
Temple and sanctuary of Aphrodite, two squares surrounded by public and
religious buildings (including the Bouleuterion, Sebasteion and the Civil
Basilica), the Theatre, and the city walls, with the Stadium to the north of these
major group of buildings (Figure 3.84) (Ratté 2008:11).
Excavations in 1961-90 focused on revealing sculptures and public buildings,
mainly owing to Erim’s interest in the sculpture industry of Aphrodisias (Ratté
2006:37). In the early 1990s, concentration moved away from opening new
trenches and instead centred on the documentation of excavated areas,
conservation and publication of the results of the first 30 years of NYU
215
involvement, and more recently on repair of earlier restorations (Smith pers.
comm. 2015).
The building remains of Aphrodisias are masonry structures and feature
sculptures, mosaics, opus sectile, wall paintings and other decorative elements.
Conservation activities251 focus on small finds, sculptures and building
remains and more recently on the preparation of a management plan. Regular
and long-spanning conservation activities consist of architectural
documentation, sculpture documentation and conservation, anastylosis works,
and lime-mortar application on walls.
Figure 3.84 Site plan (Ratté 2008:14)
Site conservation and presentation
Architectural interventions at Aphrodisias are mostly in the form of re-erection
of architectural blocks, and restoration and anastylosis works, as well as
251 Conservation forms a significant portion of the ERM reports. Activities are described under
dedicated sections, with titles such as “Conservation”, “Restoration”, “Site Recording”,
“Architectural Survey”, “Anastylosis” and "Site Conservation and Presentation". There is also
a limited number of academic articles written by team members on individual conservation
projects. Annual newsletters of the project and the Friends groups are other sources of
information on conservation.
216
mosaic and opus sectile conservation. In some cases, old trenches were
backfilled, and mosaic floors covered for long-term preservation. Architectural
infills of collapsed or structurally unsafe walls were carried out in a way that
distinguished new parts from the original, either through a recess or, if the
original was a carved surface, by making the new addition plain (Smith
1993:374; Smith & Ratté 2004:389).
Several buildings have been restored or anastylosis projects carried out since
the early 1980s, including at the Tetrapylon, Theatre Baths, Agora, Sebasteion,
and the theatre proskenion, but most tend to be limited to column and pillar re-
erections. The first major anastylosis at Aphrodisias was that of the Tetrapylon
during Kenan Erim’s directorship (Figure 3.85). Preparations began in 1983
and the work was carried out by the architect Gerhard Paul (and architect
Thomas Kaefer) under the supervision of Friedmund Hueber, who had been
directing restorations at Ephesos (Erim 1989:278). The project, which utilized
original blocks, 85% of which survived, was completed in 1990 and
inaugurated by the president of Turkey (Smith 1992:143). The building has
since been inspected various times in the 1990s and the 2000s to monitor its
condition, determine problems and re-point where necessary.
Figure 3.85 The Tetrapylon (the author 2011)
Kenan Erim’s death marked a change in methodology at Aphrodisias.
Architectural documentation became the focus of the excavation and a two-
year programme was initiated to study and document ‘previously found
217
materials’ before any new excavations, as is explained by the new director
R.R.R. Smith (1995:12)252:
In 1993 a new program of detailed site recording, accompanied by
limited excavation, was initiated (directed by C. Ratté). It is not our
intention to undertake major excavation to uncover new areas of the
site, but rather to document thoroughly all the old trenches and
buildings that have already been excavated, and to dig further where
necessary to answer particular questions.
In conjunction with the documentation programme, in 1993, a new site-scale
programme was initiated with the aim to “conserve the exposed walls of the
ancient monuments on the site with lime mortars” (Smith 1997:315). Many
buildings at Aphrodisias were constructed using lime-mortar or some form of
earthen mortar, which can form suitable environments for plant growth. The
team, therefore, wished to hinder the serious damage vegetation could cause
and so, instead of covering the buildings with roofs, wall tops were covered
with a specially composed lime-mortar using local materials253
(Proudfoot&Severson 2010:202). The lime-mortar has been applied on various
buildings at the site over the past two decades and has been deemed successful
in reducing plant growth and maintenance costs (Proudfoot & Severson
2010:205).
252 By 2005, all the major public buildings at the site had been documented (Ratté 2006:46)
but the documentation programme continues to this day (Smith 2015:89). Also from the early
1990s onwards, computer technology started to be used in generating digital reconstructions,
assessment of conservation and restoration requirements and the preparation of a site plan
(Smith 1993:375, 1999:314).
253 The mortar, which was first applied in the Triconch Church in 1995 under the direction of
stone conservator T. Proudfoot (Smith 1997:315), was tested in the UK, followed by various
other preliminary capping trials at the site to develop “sustainable, workable mortar systems
based on locally available materials that could be installed by local labour with minimal
supervision.” (Proudfoot & Severson 2010:202).
218
In the 2000s, various projects were initiated at the Bouleuterion, the Bishop’s
Palace, the Stadium and the Temple of Aphrodite, which mostly involved wall
repairs, capping and pointing. Another long-running anastylosis started in this
decade concerned the Sebasteion. Initial research had begun in 1991 and a
restoration project was prepared the following year; however, actual
anastylosis work started in 2005, after analysis of existing architectural blocks.
Supervised by Gerhard Paul and Thomas Kaefer, initial work involved the re-
building of the east end of the South Building, and was completed in 2012. The
project continues with the anastylosis of the building’s propylon (Smith &
Öğüş 2016:543).
Preparations for another major conservation project began in 2008 at the
Hadrianic Baths. This building had been excavated in 1904-05 since when it
had been left exposed to the elements but was still fairly well-preserved.
Interventions focused on consolidation and conservation. A six-year project
began in 2010 and continues under the supervision of Thomas Kaefer and
Gerhard Paul, with Kent Severson, Trevor Proudfoot and their respective
teams (Smith & Öğüş 2014:303–304; Smith 2015:82–83). The building is also
being documented under the direction of Arzu Öztürk from the Mimar Sinan
Fine Arts University.
In the early 2010s, a new project began to examine earlier interventions at the
Theatre’s raised stage (restored in the 1980s) to correct previous errors in the
positioning of some of the blocks and carry out urgent repairs (Smith & Öğüş-
Uzun 2013:82). The South Agora has been another focal point, where
conservation work concentrated on resolving the rising ground water problem
and making the area accessible to visitors (Smith & Öğüş 2014:304–305).
Management planning
In 2007, the Geyre Foundation signed a protocol with the Ministry of Culture
and Tourism for the preparation of a management plan for Aphrodisias, in
order to aid the site’s inscription on the World Heritage List (Geyre Foundation
219
n.d; UNESCO World Heritage Centre n.d.). Initially a group of English
architects (Peter Inskip & Peter Jenkins Architects) were hired by the Geyre
Foundation; however, they withdrew from the project before completion
(Smith pers. comm. 2015).
The final management plan was prepared under the supervision of Aykut
Karaman of the Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Department of City and
Regional Planning. The plan, which became part of the WHS bid (Smith pers.
comm. 2015), was prepared with a participatory approach of which the
excavation team was part. The consultation process resulted in six main issues
for which the plan defined strategies and specific projects (Management and
Organization, Conservation and Planning; Accessibility and Visitor
Management; Perception of the Significance and Values of the Site; Education,
Awareness Raising and Participation; and Risk Management) (Karaman
2013). The Conservation and Planning projects include provision of site
security measures, completion of a cultural inventory of Aphrodisias and its
territory, scheduling of anastylosis projects, and expropriation of private lands
etc. (Karaman 2013:145–152).
Conservation staff
A multi-disciplinary team carries out the conservation projects. Architects are
responsible of anastylosis works (called ‘anastylosis architects’ in the ERM
reports) in addition to other architects, conservators, marble/stone conservators
(and students), who are supported by surveyors and engineers depending on
the scope of work of the season. At present, there are two Austrian anastylosis
architects (Gerhard Paul and Thomas Kaefer) and one British stone
conservator (Trevor Proudfoot) who, as the senior conservation team, lead a
large team of architects and stone conservators.
220
Funding
ERM reports and the project website list funding bodies and donors that have
been supporting scientific research and conservation work at the site. The main
sources are the Institute of Fine Arts and the Faculty of Arts and Science of
New York University, National Endowment for the Humanities in Washington
and the Friends of Aphrodisias in Istanbul, Izmir, London, and Paris. In the
1980s, the National Geographic Society is also mentioned as one of the funding
bodies.
Financial support of foundations and friends’ societies is particularly towards
long-term building conservation projects and site presentation works. The most
significant example is the Geyre Foundation, established in 1987, specifically
to aid archaeological work at Aphrodisias, which has been especially generous
in its support of conservation work across the site: the restoration of the West
City Gate (1998), the construction of a new museum hall at the Aphrodisias
Museum to house the reliefs of the Sebasteion (opened in 2008), restoration of
the existing museum (2009), the management plan, and the anastylosis of the
Sebasteion’s South Building (2012) are some of its major contributions.
Among the friends’ societies, an example is the Friends of Aphrodisias Trust’s
(London) support of the work at the Theatre in the 2010s.
From 2000 onwards, Aphrodisias engaged other funding bodies to support
conservation work. The Samuel H. Kress Foundation funded the architectural
conservation at the Bouleuterion254 (for which the Robert Wilson Challenge
Grant awarded by the World Monuments Fund was also used) and the Temple
of Aphrodite in the early 2000s (Smith & Ratté 2003:328). In the early 2010s,
the J.M. Kaplan Fund and the World Monuments Fund’s “Robert W. Wilson
Challenge to Conserve Our Heritage” became major sponsors of conservation
254 The ERM reports mention that the 1984 Foundation intermittently sponsored architectural
students, while the Samuel H. Kress Foundation has been sponsoring archaeological
conservators (Smith & Öğüş 2014:309; Smith 2015:81; Smith & Öğüş 2016:549).
221
interventions in the North Agora, the Theatre, the Sebasteion’s Propylon, and
the Hadrianic Baths (Smith & Öğüş-Uzun 2013:82; Smith & Öğüş 2014:307).
Community engagement
Locals have been involved with the excavations for many years, especially
those involved in architectural conservation interventions (Öztürk 2014:231).
The work at the Tetrapylon resulted in a skilled labour force who subsequently
continued to work at the site (World Monuments Fund 1999:37).
The project website (www.nyu.edu/projects/aphrodisias/home.ti.htm) is
hosted by New York University (NYU) and contains information about visible
buildings, such as the Sebasteion, Basilica and the Bouleterion, history of the
site, etc. It is available only in English and remains fairly static in terms of
making new developments available. Annual newsletters written for the NYU
or the Friends’ associations provide more up-to-date information on excavation
and conservation work.
3.8.2 Gordion
The site is located near the Polatlı district of Ankara. In 1900, Alfred and
Gustav Körte carried out the first excavations. Rodney S. Young of University
of Pennsylvania directed the excavations between 1950 and 1973, and since
then explorations have continued under the auspices of University of
Pennsylvania. Young was followed by Keith DeVries as the Project Director
from 1974 to 1987 but no new trenches were opened until 1988 when
excavations resumed with G. Kenneth Sams as the director (Voigt 2011:1073).
C. Brian Rose, who had been the co-director of the project since 2007,
succeeded him as the new director in 2014. The site was added on the WH
Tentative List in 2012.
The focal points of archaeological research at Gordion are the Citadel Mound
and the Tumulus MM (Midas Mound/Tomb). The Citadel Mound contains the
remains of the Old Citadel (Earl Phrygian period) and the New Citadel
222
(Middle-Late Phrygian period) which are separated by a Destruction Level (9th
century BC) that helped preserve the old citadel (Goodman 2002:195; Sams
2005:15). The unearthed buildings are stone masonry (ashlar) and mudbrick.
In the early 1960s, when deterioration of exposed buildings became an issue,
there had been isolated interventions to buildings based on their specific
problems but not as part of a ‘consistent strategy’ (Goodman 2002:197).
Megaron 2 and 3, for example, were both reburied using different techniques
after their excavations in the 1960s (in Megaron 2, the mosaic floor was lifted
and transferred to the local museum in 1961) –interventions that negatively
impacted the legibility of the site (Goodman 2005:216).
Until excavations began in 1988, ERM reports concentrate on conservation
efforts of the Midas Tomb and its wooden finds, which continue to be of
importance but now form part of a larger conservation programme. In addition
to the conservation of finds of the previous excavation phase of 1950-73, a
major conservation concern in the 1980s and 1990s was the Midas Tomb,
particularly how to care for the tomb itself as well as the timber material found
in the tomb255.
A shift in focus is observed in the late 1980s, attested to here: “It is inexcusable
that the great relics of our past dissolve away unattended while new trenches
are dug nearby. The primary concern at this time should not be the discovery
of new civilizations, but the preservation of those already uncovered.” (Koob,
Rogers & Sams 1990:289). An assessment of conservation requirements of the
site was carried out in 1987, which suggests that concern was moving from the
Midas Tomb to the wider extends of the site (deVries 1989:175). In the 1990s
focus turned towards the architectural remains and the site as a whole, as is
indicated in the reports of this period with sub-titles “architectural conservation
255 The recording, analysis, and restoration of wooden furniture of the tomb as well as object
conservation are carried out through a long-term program, which are covered in dedicated
sections in the ERM reports (at least until the mid-1990s).
223
and site improvement" or “architectural conservation and site enhancement"
(Sams 1992:473). In this respect, the reports of the early 1990s begin to
demonstrate the range of conservation research and interventions that were
being carried out at Gordion at the time:
• conservation of the Citadel Mound
• architectural conservation and monitoring of conditions within the
Midas Tomb
• object conservation
• furniture conservation and study
In 2007, a moratorium on excavations was put into place, and conservation and
publications became priority256 (Matero 2012:229; Rose 2015:494).
Site conservation
Architectural conservation can be examined in terms of interventions carried
out in the wooden chamber of the Tumulus MM –and the tumulus mound
itself– and the Early Phrygian citadel, focusing particularly on the monumental
gateway and the Terrace Building Complex. The Tumulus continued to be a
focal point of conservation efforts at Gordion for many years. The year the new
excavations began in 1988, Bernard Feilden carried out a detailed structural
analysis of the wooden tomb “as part of an on-going project to arrive at a
complete program of conservation” (Sams & Voigt 1990:78). In 1993, a
conference was held in Ankara concerning the conservation of the Midas
Tomb, with the participation of specialists including conservators, a wood
pathologist, structural engineers, a biologist, and an architect (Sams & Voigt
1995:378). Richard Liebhart continued work on the structural consolidation of
the tomb in 1996 and applied temporary measures (Sams & Voigt 1998:689).
256 Excavations resumed in 2013.
224
Other than the Midas Tomb, the early 1990s saw the beginning of conservation
activities to determine appropriate interventions to exposed architectural
remains, whereas previously there had been only isolated interventions.
Feilden, who was the first person to suggest grouting to stabilize the Early
Phrygian Gate, and later in 1990, his colleague, the British architectural
conservator Archie Walls, advised on how to conserve exposed buildings.
Walls’ primary influence on Gordion was his suggestion of constructing ramps
to buttress walls in precarious conditions (Sams 1992:473), which was adopted
by the team.
One of the earlier conservation projects in those years focused on mudbrick
walls (sections of Megaron 1 and 4) and involved trials of two methods: mud-
plastering257 and use of a chemical consolidant (Koob et al. 1990:292–293). A
conservation programme concerning the mound was initiated in 1992 by a
‘specialist in historical preservation’, W.C.S. Remsen, who served as the
Director of Architectural Conservation from 1992 until 1994 (Sams 1996:439).
The following year, interventions on the Early Phrygian Terrace Building
began with the partial rebuilding and mortar capping258 of its masonry walls, a
project that became part of a “pilot program to determine the techniques,
materials, and systems that should be used in future conservation at the site”
(Sams & Voigt 1995:377).
Another pressing issue was the erosion on Midas Tumulus. In 1997, Kurt
Bluemel and Naomi Miller implemented a conservation technique whereby
eroded sections (erosion channels) were filled with mudbrick while the slopes
257 The mud-plaster method proved unsuccessful as it ended up removing parts of the original
walls, and Megaron 1 –where mud-plastering was first applied in 1989 (Sams 1992:473)– was
reburied in 1994.
258 This capping was deemed ‘modern-looking’ and changed in 1994 with a newly devised
capping that gave a ‘rusticated’ look (Sams 1996:439).
225
of the mound were planted with grass (Sams & Voigt 1999:565) –a process
that continued in the following years.
More full-fledged conservation work began with the arrival of Mark Goodman
in 1998, an architectural conservator educated at the University of
Pennsylvania, who until his premature death in 2004 served as the Director of
Architectural Conservation. Goodman’s aim was to devise a conservation
strategy that increased the legibility of the site while conserving it through
economical means that made use of available human and material resources;
to that end he introduced site conservation guidelines for Gordion, which he
viewed as an ‘archaeological landscape’, and carried out a risk assessment for
exposed buildings (Goodman 2002:198–199, 2005:217).
The Early Phrygian Gate and the Terrace Buildings were deemed priority areas
to be intervened based on Goodman’s risk assessment. Rubble core capping
replaced previous capping methods and was initially applied on the Terrace
Building 4 (Matero, Rose & Sams 2011:xli) with burlap sandbags used to
further consolidate the walls (Figure 3.86).
At the Phrygian Gate, the main problem was structural owing to decades of
exposure: the facing stones had become displaced causing a serious bulge in
the wall which the concrete capping applied in the 1950s and 1980s had been
unable to prevent –the 1999 earthquake had also exacerbated the situation.
Goodman decided to use the ‘gravity grouting’ technique, which involved
injecting a hydraulic lime consolidant into the wall to re-bond the facing to the
core –applying this technique meant that the wall did not have to be dismantled
and reassembled (Goodman 2005:219). After trials in 2001, work began in
2002 on the southern court of the gate and grouting continued until the end of
the 2006 season (Figure 3.86).
226
Figure 3.86 (left) Goodman’s interpretive stabilization technique (Goodman 2002:208), (right)
its implementation (Goodman 2005:227)
The tomb inside the Midas Tomb was further supported in 2002 (in addition to
the concrete encasement of 1961259) by a steel structure resting on concrete
footings –a project carried out by Ural Engineering (Ankara) under the
supervision Richard Liebhart (Sams & Voigt 2004:196).
In 2005, the season after Goodman’s death, Frank Matero, Director of the
University of Pennsylvania’s Architectural Conservation Laboratory, assessed
conditions (Sams, Burke & Goldman 2007:381) and assumed conservation
responsibility. In 2006, Goodman’s two major conservation techniques
(grouting260 and interpretive stabilization technique) were re-evaluated. The
grouting technique was applied as micro-grouting (using syringes) to the Early
Phrygian Gate by Matero and his team but was ceased in order to allow for a
structural inspection of the building (Sams & Burke 2008:334). It was
considered more important to document the existing condition of the building
and identify causes of deterioration before anything else (del Bono 2015:6).
The burlap sandbag technique also underwent some changes and ‘soft-
capping’ started to be applied on wall-tops, which involved the use of low-
growing perennial grass (poa) to prevent growth of deeper rooted plants
(Miller 2012).
259 This was carried out by Turkish officials (Sams & Voigt 2004: 196; Matero (2012:229).
260 See Keller (2011:98–99) for an evaluation of grouting applied on the gate.
227
Another project involved the previously applied cement capping of the Early
Phrygian Gateway, with the aim of finding an alternative treatment to cover
the top of the wall. Part of the concrete was replaced with waterproofing
materials and covered with earth (Sams 2011:464).
A 5-year site conservation plan for the citadel was prepared in 2007 by the
UPenn Architectural Conservation Laboratory (del Bono 2015:6) according to
which various interventions were carried out (Figure 3.87).
Figure 3.87 Citadel site conservation plan and phases of implementation
(www.conlab.org/acl/gordion/con_manage.html)
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, conservation work involved wall repairs at
the Terrace Building Complex, particularly buildings 1 and 2. Interventions
consisted of dismantling and/or replacing of stones where necessary,
stabilizing the two faces of the walls with a new technique utilizing steel
cables, and finishing off the wall tops with soft capping (Figure 3.88, Figure
3.89) (Sams & Rose 2012:504–505, 2013:82).
In 2013, Frank Matero, together with structural engineer David Biggs, devised
a 4-year conservation project for the monumental gateway. The building posed
structural problems and the previously applied grouting technique did not help
(del Bono pers. comm. 2015). The project involved the dismantling of stones,
trimming the rubble filling and reassembling the removed stones using steel
228
strips to secure them to the wall (Figure 3.90) (del Bono 2015; Rose 2015:493).
The project continues.
Figure 3.88 Soft capping (the author 2015)
Figure 3.89 (left) Backfilled terrace buildings (the author 2015, (right) conserved terrace
buildings (the author 2015)
Figure 3.90 The scaffolding erected in 2014 for the new interventions at the monumental
gateway (left) (the author 2015); dismantled and repaired stone from the gateway (right) (the
author 2015)
Site presentation
Presentation work especially focused on legibility of exposed architectural
remains and provision of on-site information to visitors. This became
229
particularly significant during Goodman’s tenure through his interpretive
stabilization technique mentioned above. But because many areas had been
backfilled in order to preserve exposed remains, properly presenting the site
was difficult (del Bono pers. comm. 2015).
In terms of visitor information, bilingual (Turkish and English) signs and
information panels were designed (by landscape architects Alan Spulecki and
Kenneth Keltai) for the Midas Tomb, the Gordion Museum and the settlement
mound 2km away in the mid-1990s (Sams & Voigt 1997:482), followed by
information panels erected at the Gordion Museum in 1996 in collaboration
with the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations (Sams & Voigt 1998:689).
From the late 2000s onwards, site presentation became a more pressing issue
and comprehensive interventions resulted in the construction of two viewing
platforms and a stone staircase with stainless steel fences as the first steps
towards better presenting the site (Sams 2011:464–465). In 2013, new
information panels were placed at specific locations upon MoCT’s request
(Rose 2015:493). The opportunity was taken to include architectural
conservation processes into the presentation (Figure 3.91). This project also
included ten viewing stations, designed by Lindsay Falck, which were tested
on site and modified subsequently (Figure 3.92) (Falck & Prime 2011).
Figure 3.91 Information panel describing architectural conservation efforts at the site (the
author 2015)
230
Figure 3.92 Design and proto-type of the viewing stations (Gordion Project)
Management planning
In 2007, work began on a management plan for Gordion and its environs
following an agreement between the Middle East Technical University and the
University of Pennsylvania (Sams 2009:141). The plan involved the survey of
the archaeological site itself, as well as the Yassıhöyük village and five other
villages in the area, and other mounds and tumuli in order to ascertain values
and define conservation actions (Erder, Gürsan-Salzmann & Miller 2013:338–
339). The notions of ‘cultural landscape’ and ‘eco-park’ were adopted as
driving forces (Erder et al. 2013:342). The plan was developed by an inter-
disciplinary team; however, it did not entail consultations with stakeholders
(though the plan identifies them) and was not prepared in collaboration with
MoCT, and therefore is not legally binding.
Conservation staff
Architectural conservation became a particular focus from 1988 onwards, and
following Feilden and Walls’ brief involvement, the presence of conservation
professionals became more permanent261. In the early 1990s, W.C.S Remsen
261 Among the most consistent conservation teams at Gordion were those working on objects
and wooden furniture. In the 1980s and 1990s, conservation of the wooden furniture of the
tumuli MM and P were being carried out by Elizabeth Simpson from the Metropolitan Museum
of Art, together with Lisa Goldberg and later Krystyna Spirydowicz, while object conservation
was the responsibility of Jessica Johnson (Sams & Voigt 1990:78). Stephen Koob and Jessica
Johnson continued object conservation in the 1990s.
231
became the Director of Architectural Conservation for Gordion, followed by
Goodman from 1998 until 2004. In 2005, Matero was invited to Gordion and
he was instrumental in devising a new direction for architectural and site
conservation. His student Elisa del Bono, together with Angelo Lanza, became
involved with Gordion in 2009, and since then they have been supervising
conservation work at the site. The current architectural conservation team
consists of, in addition to del Bono and Lanza, two Italian conservators and
local workers (del Bono pers. comm. 2015). Periodically, there may also be
young architects and students. Recently, the structural engineers Semih Günen
and David Biggs have also been involved with conservation work.
The preparation of the management plan was directed by Evin Erder in
collaboration with Ayşe Gürsan-Salzmann, and prepared by the staff and
students of METU and the University of Pennsylvania.
Funding
Various organisations funded conservation work at Gordion over the years.
Architectural and site conservation has been funded mostly by foreign
foundations, such as the J.M. Kaplan Fund, GHF, the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation, 1984 Foundation and the Selz Foundation, and more recently
Merops Foundation, as well as several commercial companies, such as General
Electric, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and individual supporters. The
wooden furniture conservation was funded by the Samuel H. Kress
Foundation, Getty Grant Program, the Dover Foundation, the Joseph Rosen
Foundation (Sams 1992:474).
Examples of corporate funding include General Electric’s Aircraft Engines
division who supported architectural conservation work in 1994 (Sams
1996:439), and Lockheed Martin Corporation.
The US Ambassador’s Fund for Cultural Preservation contributed to the
consolidation of the monumental gateway in 2002 (The Ambassador’s Fund
232
for Cultural Preservation 2002:11; Sams & Voigt 2004:195). The Döner
Sermaye Işletmeleri Merkez Müdürlüğü of the Ministry of Culture funded the
construction of the new steel and concrete support for the tomb inside the
Midas Tumulus in 2002.
Non-profit funding included the J.M. Kaplan Fund’s support of the
conservation of mosaics in Megaron 2 and their new display mechanisms,
which had been relocated to the local museum (Rose 2015:492). The J.M.
Kaplan Fund, the Selz Foundation and Merops Foundation financed the new
conservation project on the Citadel Gateway (del Bono 2015:2). The 1984
Foundation financed, for the most part, the conservation plan for the citadel.
Also mentioned is the Gordion Foundation262 in the 2000s (Goodman
2002:213).
The Conservation Management Plan for Gordion and Environs was funded by
TÜBİTAK (in 2008) (Erder et al. 2013:337), the 1984 Foundation, the Morgan
Family Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Fund, the University of Pennsylvania and
Charles K. Williams (Gürsan-Salzmann & Erder 2010:7).
Community engagement
There is a strong relationship with the community of Yassıhöyük and the
archaeological project. A long-running scheme, aimed at site management,
engages women villagers with the site, whereby they come to Gordion in June,
before the season begins, and manually remove all the weeds (Figure 3.93).
Commending their work, del Bono says that the women are paid equal wages
as the men and their efforts saves the conservation team a lot of time (pers.
comm. 2015).
262 The Gordion Foundation was established in Turkey in the late 1990s to raise private funds
for the site. Detailed information about their organisational structure or the projects they
funded were unavailable. There is also the Friends of Gordion, a group of people who make
donations to the project, but again, information is scarce.
233
Figure 3.93 Village women at work prior to the field season (E. del Bono)
In the early 2010s, the team started to develop educational awareness-raising
programmes to “foster a shared sense of ownership” (Gürsan-Salzmann &
Erder 2010:6). In 2014, a Cultural Heritage Education Program (CHEP) was
initiated, led by Gürsan-Salzmann, which focused on high school students
from local villages who spent several weeks on hands-on archaeology, site and
museum visits and an introduction to the process of archaeological research
(Gürsan-Salzmann 2015). The director is also engaged with the project and
gives talks to the students (Rose pers. comm. 2015).
The bilingual (English and Turkish) website of the Gordion project is called
“Digital Gordion” (http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/) (Figure 3.94) and
contains detailed information on the conservation work carried out. The Site
Conservation reports from 2005 through to 2014 can be accessed.
Figure 3.94 Digital Gordion website (http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/)
In addition to the project website, the UPenn’s Architectural Conservation
Laboratory have their own section regarding their work
234
(http://www.conlab.org/acl/gordion/index_new.html). This website provides
information on the three main aspects of conservation work at Gordion: the
citadel, management plan and the cultural landscape.
3.8.3 Sardis
Sardis is located in the Salihli district of Manisa. The first explorations at the
site took place in the second half of the 19th century by the Prussian and British
consuls, and in 1904 by the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Istanbul. The
American Society for the Exploration of Sardis carried out excavations in
1910-14 and 1922 directed by Howard Crobsy Butler. Excavations
recommenced in 1958 led by G.M.A. Hanfmann, sponsored jointly by Harvard
and Cornell universities (Greenewalt Jr. 2011:1125). He was succeeded by
Crawford Greenewalt Jr. of the University of California, Berkeley in 1976 (ed.
Bayram 2008:222). Since 2008, the excavations have been directed by
Nicholas D. Cahill, University of Wisconsin, Madison. The site, which has
been included on the WH Tentative List in 2013, consists of an acropolis and
settlement on its northern slope that spreads further down the plain and
contains architectural remains from the second millennium BC onwards263
(Figure 3.95) (Greenewalt Jr. 2011:1112–1114).
263 Hanfmann aimed to understand Sardis and its vicinity using a multi-disciplinary approach
(Greenewalt Jr. 2006:360) and it was during his tenure that the now landmark buildings at
Sardis, such as the Bath-Gymnasium Complex and the Synagogue, were discovered and
partially reconstructed. Excavations during Greenewalt’s directorship involved primarily the
Lydian Gate and fortifications, as well as shelter constructions. The current director Cahill
continues at the western gate, the Temple of Artemis, monumental terraces on the northern
slopes of the Acropolis, as well as several long-term conservation projects (The
Archaeological Exploration of Sardis n.d.).
235
Figure 3.95 Site plan (Sardis Archaeological Expedition)
Site conservation
Conservation activities at Sardis264 involve documentation of the site and the
landscape, as well as routine architectural documentation work and a variety
of architectural interventions. Especially since the early 1990s, periodic
maintenance and conservation have become routine practice at Sardis and are
referred to as “site enhancement” in the ERM reports. Conservation measures
can be grouped into restoration, shelters, preventive conservation,
reconstruction, reburial, cleaning and maintenance (Morris 2013, November).
264 Conservation work features in almost every ERM report. In the 1980s and early 1990s, they
usually mention pottery, mosaic and artefact conservation, architectural documentation, repair
and consolidation of architectural remains, and shelter constructions. Starting with the 1990s,
‘site enhancement’ appears as one of the areas of focus and since the 2010s they provide
detailed information on conservation projects. There are also various articles written by team
members over the years.
236
A major project in the late 1970s, after the reconstruction of the Marble
Court265 completed in 1973 (Yegul 1976), was the full-scale reconstruction of
a Lydian building, complete with roof and tiles (1977-1981) (Figure 3.96)
(Greenewalt Jr. 1983:237), the aim of which was “to illustrate a variety of
complete tiles in a plausible assemblage that would reproduce the size,
materials, colours, and textures of ancient originals through the use of clays
and clay slips of kinds that were used in antiquity.” (Greenewalt Jr. n.d.). This
was not a practice in experimental archaeology, however, as the techniques
used were modern, but it allowed for some information to be derived about
architectural terracotta tile production (Greenewalt Jr. n.d.). It was not built for
visitors either as it is located within the confines of the dig house, where
visitors are not allowed.
Figure 3.96 Reconstructed Lydian building (the author 2015)
Temporary shelters were constructed where necessary, such as at the MMS
sector, where construction of a permanent shelter began in 1996 to cover the
Roman and Archaic residential units. Covered with polycarbone, “the simple
parabolic shape of the main roof is meant to distinguish the shelter from other
modern buildings in the vicinity, without disturbing the panorama of the site”
(Greenewalt 1998:709). It was designed by the architects Troy Thompson and
Philip Stinson (Greenewalt Jr. 1999:4). The wall-tops underneath the shelter
265 Carried out between 1964 and 1973, this was a major reconstruction in terms of its scale –
the first of its kind in Turkey– and has impacted other archaeological sites. See Yegul (1976);
Schmidt (1993:159–163).
237
were capped, and wall paintings consolidated, with various infills serving as
viewing platforms (Figure 3.97) (Severson 2008:177). Other places, mostly
smaller areas with inscriptions, were sheltered using the same material.
Figure 3.97 (left) sketch of the shelter (Greenewalt 1999: 14) and (right) view in 2011 (the
author)
In 2002-03, Lydian buildings in sector PN (Pactolus North), were consolidated
using a specially created mortar as infill material, while Roman buildings in
the MMS sector were re-capped using slate and concrete above a separating
mortar layer for conservation purposes as well as to facilitate perception of
architectural plans (Greenewalt Jr. 2005:83; Severson 2008:177).
At the time, the Marble Court had started showing signs of decay in the shape
of cracks in the concrete roof and discolouration on the marble surface. Cracks
were filled and the building was washed with pressurized water (Greenewalt
Jr. 2005:83; Severson 2008:176). In 2007-09, wall revetments were built,
which had not been part of the original reconstruction of the building, to
provide more accurate information for visitors (Greenewalt Jr. 2009:196;
Cahill 2011:361).
In 2006, the team concentrated on the theatre and examined it in relation to its
re-use following MoCT’s request that all projects to focus on theatres. The
director had already purchased the land where the theatre lay to protect it from
a local who had planted trees on it (Greenewalt Jr. 2007:747), but there had
been no plan to work there. Subsequent to investigations, Greenewalt decided
238
that the proximity of the theatre to the road, as well as the bad state of
preservation of the ruin, made it unsuitable for re-use (2008:373).
In 2010, a three-year conservation project began at the Lydian Altar, the
marble steps of which no longer survived. The sandstone foundation and
perimeter walls had deteriorated and were incomprehensible to visitors (Kariya
pers. comm. 2015). They were restored –to the as-found state of Butler’s
excavation– using consolidants, with the perimeter walls covered in slate, and
infills distinguished from existing material, and to prevent further decay and
aid legibility the steps were covered with travertine blocks (Figure 3.98)
(Cahill 2013:150).
Figure 3.98 The steps and the perimeter wall (left) (the author 2015); (right) infill in the
perimeter wall (right) (the author 2011)
One of the major issues at Sardis has been the accumulated biological growth
on the Temple of Artemis which discoloured the remains of the building and
attracted graffiti writers (Cahill 2015:423). Various methods were tested and
applied, especially after the 1990s, to safely remove this growth by way of
chemicals and pressurized water spray without damaging the building material
(Greenewalt Jr. 1995:396, 1999:4; Severson 2008:176). Also, interventions to
remove graffiti were carried out (Greenewalt Jr. 1992:461, 2005:84). More
recently, a new method (biocide application) was devised to remove organic
growth. The five-year project which began in 2014 continues.
Another recent conservation project involves shelter constructions above the
Synagogue and the Lydian fortification. At the Synagogue, the floor mosaics,
239
which showed signs of deterioration, had been stabilized during a three-year
project in 2009-12 (Cahill 2014:128), but covering the building was considered
to be a better solution for preservation. The plan is to build a transparent shelter
over the entire building (the preliminary design shows a multi-partite roof)
(Figure 3.99) (The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis). The Lydian
fortification, built of masonry, mudbrick and baked brick, is already covered
with a roof (built in 2009, mentioned earlier), however it does not allow visitors
to see the walls, therefore, a new transparent roof is planned that not only
provides protection for the ruins, but also enables visitors to appreciate the
remains (Cahill pers. comm. 2015).
Figure 3.99 (left) Preliminary shelter design for the Synagogue (The Archaeological
Exploration of Sardis); (right) the situation regarding the Lydian fortification with the
temporary shelter in the fore-ground (the author 2015)
Site presentation
Site presentation266 is primarily carried out by architectural interventions
mentioned above. In 2009-10, a total of 13 information panels were installed,
including the Temple, Marble Court, and the Synagogue (Cahill 2009 season).
266 From the ERM reports of the early 1990s onwards, there are references to ‘site
enhancement’, which denote conservation interventions and visitor-related measures such as
installation of information panels for visitors. In the early 2010s, a new term, “Touristic
Enhancement Project” has been used to denote work related with the conservation and
presentation of a large area including “the Lydian Fortification, the monumental Lydian gate,
Late Roman houses, the Synagogue, a Roman colonnaded avenue, and other buildings in the
vicinity” (Cahill 2015:423).
240
In 2010, Butler’s iron crane was repaired and placed to the west of the Lydian
Altar, with its own information panel (Figure 3.100).
Figure 3.100 Butler’s crane and related information panel (the author 2011)
More recently, a new project involved the display of the connection between
the Lydian Fortification and the Synagogue, and the different occupational
periods of the site by using the multi-layered roads (Cahill pers. comm. 2015).
An excavation to reveal more of the Roman road, however, unexpectedly
revealed a monumental marble arch resting on two tetrapylons. This area will
also be presented to visitors.
Conservation staff
The conservation team consists of artefact conservators and site conservators,
who run large-scale and multi-year projects. There is a long history of artefact
conservation in Sardis. In his article on the conservation history at Sardis
during Greenewalt’s tenure as director, Severson, a long-time contributor to
conservation work in Sardis, refers to the first director Hanfmann, who had a
conservator in the team since the first season of 1958, and states that he
introduced “on-site training of conservators to the Sardis agenda by bringing
Lawrence Majewski267 to the site with students from the Conservation Center
of the Institute of Fine Arts (I.F.A.) at New York University” (Severson
2008:171). This practice continued under the directorship of Greenewalt and
267 He was a specialist on mosaics and wall paintings (Severson 2008:171).
241
in 1983 evolved into a programme that enabled continuity, in which a student
came to Sardis for two consecutive seasons (and stayed throughout the
excavation period) and in his/her first year as a junior student, was supervised
by the former junior (now senior) student, and in his/her second year
supervised the new junior student, and so on (Severson 2008:172). This system
continues to this day, with most of the students coming from New York
University, who are supervised by professional conservators. Specialists in the
conservation of specific materials would also be invited, when required, to
contribute as Conservators for Special Projects (Severson 2008:172).
At present, there are two supervising conservators (from Harvard University),
both full-time professionals, who therefore cannot stay for the whole duration
of the excavation (Cahill pers. comm. 2015). In the season of 2014, the
conservation team included Turkish conservation students for the first time268
(Cahill pers. comm. 2015).
Site conservators have most recently been working on mudbrick walls and the
Temple, and assisted in the occasional lifting of objects from the field when
required (Cahill pers. comm. 2015; Kariya pers. comm. 2015). For the past two
decades, architect Michael Morris, and conservator Hiroko Kariya, who
previously worked at Kaman-Kalehöyük, have been supervising architectural
conservation projects. They stay at Sardis for 6 weeks each, their working
period partly overlapping (Cahill pers. comm. 2015).
Architectural documentation and architectural interventions, such as the design
of shelters, are carried out by American architects long-associated with the
Sardis project. Philip Stinson (University of Kansas), who now works at
Aphrodisias, has been in charge of the Total Station documentation of visible
ruins at the site for many years, while he, along with Troy Thompson (Smith
268Although not within the time-frame of this research, in the season of 2015, the number of
conservators outnumbered archaeologists (Cahill pers. comm. 2015).
242
Group JJR) (also a long-time collaborator), and Nathaniel Schlundt designed
the new shelter that will cover the Synagogue (The Archaeological Exploration
of Sardis 2015). The civil engineer Teoman Yalçınkaya is a significant
presence at Sardis, having supervised the reconstruction of the Marble Court
as well as its conservation 30 years on, and continues to advise on
conservation-related issues.
Community engagement
Inhabitants of Sart have been involved in the excavations since the early days.
It has mostly been the men who were employed to work in the trenches and the
restoration work, while women’s involvement was limited with helping the
upkeep of the conservation laboratory. More recently, however, women have
been encouraged to work in the field. 10 women were hired in 2014 to carry
out the organic growth removal project of the Temple (Cahill pers. comm.
2015) (Figure 3.101). They were trained to use the biocide by the two site
conservators and worked for five months in 2014 on their own without
requiring supervision –only some areas that needed consolidation before the
application were left untouched (Kariya pers. comm. 2015).
Figure 3.101 Women from Sart cleaning the Temple (the author 2015)
The project website, which only very recently went online, is bilingual
(English and Turkish –all information provided have Turkish versions)
(www.sardisexpedition.org) (Figure 3.102) and enables access to a breadth of
information including the history of excavations, particular buildings and
243
excavations, a very detailed bibliography along with pdf copies of significant
publications (monographs, reports etc.), about three thousand images, and a
database of 234 objects.
Figure 3.102 Sardis project website (The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis)
Funding
The project is co-sponsored by the Harvard University Art Museums and
Cornell University with funding for conservation-related work sourced from
various foundations. The Samuel H. Kress Foundation partially supported the
conservator trainee program that began in 1983 but is no longer involved
(Severson 2008:172). In 2010, the J.M. Kaplan Fund began supporting two
projects at Sardis, the conservation of the Lydian Altar (three-year project) and
the mosaic conservation at the Synagogue (three-year project). In 2012, their
support widened to include the cleaning of the Temple of Artemis (five-year
project).
244
245
CHAPTER 4
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES
The previous chapter examined conservation practices at 19 foreign-run
excavations over the past 35 years. This chapter reviews these practices,
identifies issues impacting conservation, and discusses possible catalysts,
influences and driving forces.
4.1 Conservation practices
This section sets out to bring together and thematically review the different
practices examined in the previous chapter and to identify changing
approaches over the past 35 years by focusing on the following topics:
• Conservation work
• People in the conservation practice
• Forms of community engagement
• Funding for conservation
The section concludes with a discussion centred around four emerging themes:
the gradual integration of conservation with archaeology, responsibility for
conservation, visibility of conservation, and community involvement.
4.1.1 Conservation work
Following on from Chapter 3, conservation work is reviewed under the
categories of site conservation, site presentation, management planning, and
principles and standardization. The details of individual projects are not
repeated here because they are already covered in Chapter 3.
246
4.1.1.1 Site conservation
The most common architectural conservation and site-scale conservation
techniques are anastylosis, reconstructions, and ‘re-conservation’; fabric
conservation (capping, infill, and cleaning); cover structures; reburial, and
maintenance. As Matero (2006:55–56) notes, this “repertoire of conservation
techniques” has had a major impact on “the way archaeological information is
preserved and how [sites are] perceived, resulting in a push and pull of
competing scientific, associative, and aesthetic values.” In this respect, the
diverse techniques and approaches presented here demonstrate the
contributions of foreign-run archaeological projects in conservation work.
Anastylosis, reconstruction and re-conservation
Conservation of archaeological sites in Turkey in the 1970s and 1980s was
primarily characterized by anastylosis and reconstruction projects at foreign-
run excavations on classical sites. These projects were carried out over long
periods of time, sometimes lasting more than a decade (Table 4.1). The large-
scale reconstruction of the Marble Court of the Gymnasium at Sardis (Yegul
1976), begun in 1964 and completed in 1973, paved the way for similar
projects (Schmidt 1993:173; Bammer 2010:38). The anastylosis of the Library
of Celsus at Ephesos (Hueber & Strocka 1975:3–14) in 1970-78 was followed
by that of the South Gate at Ephesos in 1979-88. In 1980, the partial re-erection
of the Temple of Trajan at Pergamon began (Schmidt 1993:173–179; Nohlen
1999, 2004, 2014b) and lasted for 15 years –a project directed by Klaus Nohlen
(Figure 4.1). At about the same period, the Tetrapylon at Aphrodisias was re-
erected in 1983-90 under the supervision of the architect who had previously
carried out the Celsus project at Ephesos (Friedmund Hueber).
247
Table 4.1 Noteworthy building-scale projects
1979-1980 South Gate (Ephesos)
1980-1995
(1979-1994) Temple of Trajan (Pergamon)
1983-1990 Tetrapylon anastylosis (Aphrodisias)
1991-92 Reconstruction of Chamber 2
1994-1997 Late Hellenistic Fountain House (Sagalassos)
1995-1997 Neon Library (Sagalassos)
1997- continuous anastylosis projects at Sagalassos
2003-2011 Sebasteion (Aphrodisias)
2003-06 Reconstruction of the City Wall (Hattusha)
2010-2016 Hadrianic Baths Conservation Project (Aphrodisias)
2006-2013 Red Hall (Pergamon)
Figure 4.1 Temple of Trajan, Pergamon (the author 2011)
Most anastylosis projects were completed by the early 1990s except at
Sagalassos where excavations presented a great opportunity for four
anastylosis projects over a 20-year period (Late Hellenistic Fountain House,
Nymphaeum, Heroon, Arch of Claudius). Although anastylosis projects
mainly take place at classical sites, owing to the building material (stone) and
state of preservation of monuments, there are examples at sites with remains
of earlier periods. One such project was at Hattusha in the early 1990s and
248
involved the Chamber 2, the building blocks of which were found among the
stones of a later period wall.
Reconstructions –implementations that involve primarily the use of new
materials rather than original materials (Jokilehto 1995:70)– were carried out
at a variety of sites for different purposes and with various justifications. Four
different types of reconstructions were identified at the selected sites:
• partial reconstructions
• full-scale reconstructions that are situated directly on ancient remains
• reconstructions of architectural features
• reconstructions that do not replicate or reconstruct an ancient building
discovered at the site
An example of partial reconstruction is the steps of the Lydian Altar at Sardis,
where concern for the preservation of the foundation stones led the
conservation team to cover the steps with travertine (Figure 4.2). The
implementation follows the tradition of other partial reconstructions at the site,
particularly those carried out in the 1960s at the synagogue involving the
reconstructions of a corner and the apse.
Figure 4.2 View of the Lydian Altar, Sardis (the author 2015)
249
One of the most significant examples of the second type of reconstructions –
full-scale reconstructions on ancient remains269– is the city walls of Hattusha
(Figure 4.3). The desire to add the third dimension to the site, as well as carry
out experimental archaeology, are cited as some of the reasons behind this
project (Seeher 2005:353, 2007b:32). The aim of the experimental archaeology
dimension of the project was two-fold: to test theories concerning the wall’s
construction (including man-power, duration, quantity of materials etc.), and
to monitor material endurance and maintenance requirements (Seeher
2007b:35).
Figure 4.3 City wall reconstruction, Hattusha (the author 2015)
The third type of reconstructions concern architectural decorations. A
sculptural figure of the Red Hall at Pergamon and the sphinx head of the Lion’s
Gate at Hattusha are two examples. At the Red Hall, the team provided a
glimpse of the building’s architectural decoration by reconstructing a cross-
section of the building (Figure 4.4) (including the floor, sculpture and the wall)
(Pirson & Bachmann pers. comm. 2011). At Hattusha, a recent project at the
Lion’s Gate involved the reconstruction of one of the sphinx’s faces. The
reconstruction was made using a special restoration mortar and was based on
the preserved face on the opposite side of the gate.
269 The reconstruction of the Marble Court is outside the time scope of this research but was
mentioned briefly in Chapter 3, Sardis.
250
The fourth type of reconstruction concerns those built outside or near the
excavation area with the aim of providing a general idea about common
building styles or features. Two examples are the Neolithic house at
Çatalhöyük and the Lydian house at Sardis. These buildings do not represent
any buildings that were excavated, nor are they accurate in all their
reconstructed features. The one at Çatalhöyük was built initially to learn more
about mudbrick building techniques, while the house at Sardis was constructed
primarily to answer questions about Lydian tile production processes (Figure
3.79, Figure 3.96).
Figure 4.4 Reconstructed cross-section, the Red Hall, Pergamon (Pirson et al. 2015:392)
Recently, various teams have been revisiting their previous architectural
conservation works, including mosaic conservation, infills, shelters etc., and
anastylosis projects, particularly at those excavations which have been
operating for longer periods such as Ephesos, Aphrodisias, Gordion, and
Sardis. Some of the major factors that have caused teams to revisit earlier work
are erroneous interpretations leading to faulty restorations, the use of
inappropriate materials, and a contributing lack of maintenance. The use of
incompatible materials such as concrete in the Temple of Hadrian at Ephesos
and the Phrygian Gate at Gordion, or treatments that were subsequently
251
understood to be harmful, again at Gordion’s Phrygian Gate, are some of the
examples.
Re-conservation270 is pertinent to anastylosis projects, especially those
landmark undertakings from the late 1950s onwards, as they were usually left
unmonitored (Severson 1999). The aforementioned example of Ephesos’
Temple of Hadrian was investigated as part of a site-wide maintenance
programme. Re-erected in 1957-58, the use of concrete, acrylic resin and iron
resulted in structural deformation and material decay, accentuated by improper
drainage, were the central reasons for the structure’s re-anastylosis
(Ladstaetter 2012:75–76, 2016:544). In a similar approach, a comprehensive
study was carried out at Hattusha in 2009 to assess restoration interventions of
earlier decades because some showed signs of failure, particularly the crack
fillings applied on Yazılıkaya, Lion Gate and the Great Temple. New
interventions were carried out at such problematic areas.
Fabric conservation/consolidation/stabilizations
Stone and mudbrick are the most common building materials at the examined
sites. Conservation projects specifically dealing with stone fabric did not
feature heavily in publications or in the discussions carried out as part of this
research; however, during site visits, several directors and conservation
professionals referred to inferior stone quality as well as poor building
workmanship as conservation problems. Some of the noteworthy projects
include the research on stone weathering at Troy in the 1990s and, more
recently, a marble conservation project and a mortar conservation programme
at Labraunda, and preliminary investigations into stone and/or mortar
conservation at Doliche, Göbekli Tepe and Kyme.
270 While these ‘re-conservation’ / re-anastylosis projects are not novel as such, their number
has been increasing. An earlier example is a Byzantine church in Hattusha, which had been
restored in the 1980s, was restored once again in the mid-1990s as it showed signs of
deterioration.
252
Mudbrick conservation, on the other hand, continues to be a key issue for sites
with buildings constructed primarily using this material. The examined sites
demonstrate all of the universal techniques of mudbrick conservation, which
are shelters, consolidation by capping or chemical treatments, and reburial
(French 1987:79–80; Balderrame & Chiari 1995:104–106; Matero 2000:76;
Matero & Moss 2004:218; Grover & Schaffer 2007:37; Frangipane 2010:203–
204).
The most common techniques of fabric conservation (stone and mudbrick) are
capping, infills, and surface cleaning projects. Capping, a preventive
conservation technique at some sites, has been generally carried out to cover
extensive areas of wall tops to protect against water penetration and biological
growth. It has also been used to aid legibility and thereby make sites visually
accessible to visitors. This was one of the aims of the ‘interpretive stabilization
technique’ applied at the Terrace Building Complex at Gordion, which
involved clay capping of walls supported by sandbags. Other examples include
stone capping at Sardis, mortar capping at Aphrodisias and Priene, and
mudbrick capping at Yumuktepe (Figure 4.5-Figure 4.7). Capping applications
are habitually intended to be in harmony with the environment. At Aphrodisias,
for example, the conservation team was instructed to develop a technique that
would not stand out within the setting (Proudfoot & Severson 2010:204).
Figure 4.5 Stone capping, Sardis (the author 2015)
253
Figure 4.6 Mortar capping, Aphrodisias (Proudfoot & Severson 2010:203–204)
Figure 4.7 Mortar capping, Priene (the author 2011)
While capping with stone, mortar and mudbrick are more widespread, an
unusual and novel technique concerns the soft capping application at Gordion
(a technique used by English Heritage in the UK) (Figure 4.8). This was
introduced by Frank Matero as a way to insulate wall tops of the Terrace
Building Complex; and significantly, the archaeological site was interpreted as
a “living thing” (Miller 2012:253), leading Naomi Miller to try various seeding
methods and monitoring them over a few years to decide on the most effective
system. Although the low-growing perennial grass (poa) seeds that were used
did not insulate the walls, as initially hoped, they managed to prevent the
growth of deep-rooted plants that could damage the walls (Miller 2012:255).
254
Figure 4.8 Soft capping, Gordion (the author 2015)
As in this example at Gordion, capping techniques were usually developed
over time, based on in-situ or off-site experiments, and sometimes on
successful experiences outside Turkey. For example, at Aphrodisias, the lime-
mortar was first applied in the Triconch Church in 1995 under the direction of
stone conservator T. Proudfoot (Smith 1997:315), and then tested in the UK.
The intention was to develop “sustainable, workable mortar systems based on
locally available materials that could be installed by local labour with minimal
supervision” (Proudfoot & Severson 2010:202).
Unlike the common tendency to harmonize wall cappings with original walls
and the environment, the general approach concerning infills was to distinguish
them from original wall sections. This was achieved in variety of ways:
encircling the infill with small-sized bricks, tiles or stones; recessing the infill
from the plane of the original surface; through the use of different-sized
materials or totally different materials (Figure 4.9, Figure 4.10). At Troy, for
example, the infill approach involved the use of smaller sized stones to create
a subtle differentiation from the original wall sections. This became known as
the ‘Hueber technique’ (Figure 4.11).
Similar to infills, other new additions were required to stand out. At Gordion,
for example, Goodman’s site conservation guidelines (2002:212) stated that in
cases where new constructions were unavoidable, such as during consolidation
works that required the construction of masonry retaining walls to buttress
original walls in danger of collapse, the intention was to distinguish new
255
sections from the original (Sams 1992:473). In other cases this was achieved
using smaller stones and tinted mortar (Sams & Voigt 1995:377).
Figure 4.9 Use of basalt to distinguish infill, Pergamon (Bachmann 2014b:95)
Figure 4.10 Use of broken slates to distinguish infill, Sardis (the author 2011)
Figure 4.11 Examples of the infill technique, Troy (the author 2011)
Removal of biological growth from stone surfaces is not a particularly common
practice at the examined sites. Two such projects were identified at Sardis and
Labraunda. At Sardis, the cleaning of Temple of Artemis had been a recurring
aim of the former director Greenewalt and the current director Cahill. The
accumulated biological growth that discoloured most of its surfaces has been
256
successfully removed since 2014 with the use of a biocide (Figure 4.12). The
method, devised after three years of testing, did not specifically aim to ‘clean’
but rather focused on killing the lichen. As Cahill (pers. comm. 2015)
explained “the goal is not aesthetic but rather the conservation of the building”.
Kariya (pers. comm. 2015), one of the site conservators running the project,
stated that the conservation team does not want to overclean and remove the
patina, but rather wishes to attain the appearance of when Butler excavated the
site in the early 20th century. The multi-year application of the biocide will be
monitored to determine how frequently it needs to be re-applied (Kariya pers.
comm. 2015).
Figure 4.12 Biocide applied surfaces vs ‘uncleaned’ surfaces, Sardis (the author 2015)
Another project at Labraunda exemplifies similar concerns and principles
where a surface cleaning project was initiated as part of their marble
conservation programme in the early 2010s. Together with two students from
the University of Göteborg, several tests were carried out to devise cleaning
and consolidation measures with the intention of finding an ecological solution
to the problems observed at the site (Freccero 2012:42). Tests on selected
stones over a period of three years resulted in the removal of biological growth
(Henry et al. 2013:322–326). Describing their conservation principle as
“minimum intervention … with the lightest means possible” Freccero
emphasized that the main aim was not to achieve ‘white artifacts’, and stressed
the need for maintenance (Henry et al. 2014:264).
257
Cover structures
Shelters are widely used on archaeological sites to protect individual buildings
or sometimes entire trenches, enable and encourage visitor appreciation, and
create suitable environments for further excavations and conservation work.
Their forms, materials and design can turn them into significant landmarks
within an archaeological site shaping the landscapes in which they are situated.
The shelters built at the selected sites range from those of very simple
construction and design to large-scale projects requiring very sophisticated
construction techniques and skills. Simple shelters, generally built using
timber posts and corrugated metal sheets, are seen at many excavations,
including Kaman-Kalehöyük, Sardis, Hattusha, and others. Often built as
temporary measures, these simple structures can survive for a number of years
before appropriate permanent shelters are built, which can sometimes impair
the visual perception of sites. This was the concern of the former director of
Sardis, for example, who, in reference to the shelter covering the Colossal
Lydian Structure, named it “the world's ugliest gece kondu, which grows larger
and uglier each season” before announcing that a “more attractive and
permanent shelter is planned” (Greenewalt Jr. 1986:301). At Kaman-
Kalehöyük, however, this more rudimentary design is intentional rather than
provisional because the project wishes to utilize locally available material.
After almost thirty years there are no plans to replace it with a different shelter.
Examples of more sophisticated and purpose-built shelters, common
particularly from the mid-1990s onwards, are:
• Ephesos, Shelter for Terrace House 2 (1995-2000)
• Sagalassos, Neon Library (1995-1997)
• Sardis, MMS Sector (1996)
• Pergamon, Bau Z (1996-2004)
• Troy, G6 (2001-2003)
• Çatalhöyük, South (2003)
258
• Çatalhöyük, North (4040) (2007-2008)
• Arslantepe, Palatial Complex Shelter (2011)
• Göbekli Tepe, temporary shelter (2015)
• Göbekli Tepe, two permanent shelters (in progress)
• Sardis, Synagogue (in progress)
The different shelter constructions demonstrate different sensitivities,
approaches, and priorities that come into play in their design. As a result, scale,
types of construction materials, location of load-bearing structural elements
etc. are designed differently for each individual case. In some, the intention
was to make them stand out in such a way as to distinguish them clearly in the
landscape and to make a statement design, such as at Ephesos (Figure 3.4) and
Çatalhöyük, while in others they demonstrate a subtler approach where the
purpose was to let them blend into the landscape, such as at Pergamon (Figure
4.13).
Figure 4.13 Shelter for the Middle City excavations, Sagalassos (the author 2011)
Modularity, i.e. allowing for extensions, as in the case of Arslantepe’s shelter,
and flexibility in use, such as the removeable side panels of the South Shelter
at Çatalhöyük, are other criteria that are observed. Mimicking the former
profiles of the mounds is another design feature, as is the case at Çatalhöyük
and Troy (Figure 4.14).
259
Figure 4.14 Troy (left) (the author 2011), Çatalhöyük (right) (the author 2015)
Shelters that cover large areas usually do not aim to reconstruct any original
roof structures. At Arslantepe, for example, the intention was to reflect spatial
formations of the complex in the shelter and the modular design allowed for
differentiating open and closed spaces. Frangipane stated that these decisions
were not intended as a means of reconstructing the buildings but rather to
provide a sense of their spatial characteristics (Frangipane 2010:206):
The spirit underlying the design and the construction of the roofing of
the huge palace complex at Arslantepe was therefore not merely to
generically protect an archaeological area but rather to preserve a
homogeneous architectural complex and return it to the public,
restoring spaces, volumes, colours and light, and recreating an
atmosphere as close as possible to the original.
Shelters for individual buildings can be built directly on the remains
themselves and they become extensions of original buildings, such as at
Sagalassos’ Neon Library and Pergamon’s Bau Z. In the latter, the design was
in accordance with previous shelters built at Pergamon where the tradition has
been to build in a way that is in keeping with the landscape (Bachmann
2006:40–41) and was based on the concept of the excavation house typology
(simple hipped-roof building) (Pirson&Bachmann pers. comm. 2011).
260
Figure 4.15 Shelter of Bau Z, Pergamon (the author 2011)
The roof structure on Bau Z (Figure 4.15) was built directly on top of original
walls, which were raised using ancient stones “…in an attempt to integrate the
building and match the colours to those of the acropolis…” (Bachmann &
Schwarting 2008:163). The use of lime-mortar and recessed construction
differentiated new parts from the original walls. While the primary aim was to
protect the mosaics that had been discovered, the team also presented spatial
compositions, such as the reconstructed peri-style court, as well as wall
decorations and architectural fragments (Figure 4.16).
Figure 4.16 New walls on top of original walls (left), and exhibited fragments (right),
Pergamon (the author 2011)
Reburial
Reburying/backfilling excavated archaeological remains was not encountered
often as a conservation technique, or it may be simply that its implementation
261
is not published as often271. As a technique, its use is dependent on prior consent
of MoCT. Considering the constant dilemma between presenting sites to
visitors and the need to preserve the exposed remains, of how much to make
visible and how much to cover (Morris 2013, November), backfilling presents
a challenge: although it benefits the prolonged preservation of remains, it
prevents interpretation (Riorden 2014). Many sites in the Mediterranean
remain exposed rather than being backfilled because of the potential of keeping
excavations visible (Stanley-Price 2003:273–274).
There are examples of reburial where exposure of excavated areas has led to
serious deterioration. At Aphrodisias, particularly old excavation trenches or
exposed mosaics were reburied, while at Gordion areas that were too fragile or
where techniques were inadequate to conserve properly, were backfilled. At
Troy, areas where erosion and climatic conditions could do further damage
were backfilled with materials in a way that would enable them to be
distinguished from undisturbed ground. Another reason cited for backfilling
was to create reserve areas for future researchers (Korfmann 1994:328;
Riorden 2014:437–438).
At Hattusha, on the other hand, backfilling is part of a unique conservation
technique. Devised by Peter Neve, a former director, the Hattusha style/Neve
style involves backfilling of walls and then building new walls on top that
replicate the plans of the covered buildings. Backfilling is done with earth from
spoil heaps (Neve 1998:515; Schachner 2013, November). Neve himself
commended the style for its contribution to the site’s overall presentation
(1998:515) but Schachner notes that this technique was also criticised as it
prevents original materials from being observed (Schachner 2013, November).
271 Here, the focus is on reburials for conservation purposes rather than protection of trenches
between seasons, which in recent years is commonly being carried out with geotextiles.
262
Maintenance
Maintenance is a key component of site conservation (Jokilehto 1996:69) and
as such requires and demonstrates long-term commitment. Especially for long-
term excavation projects, where excavated architectural buildings are going to
remain exposed (for research or presentation purposes), it is vital to have a
mechanism whereby change can be monitored and managed. The cost-
effectiveness and simplicity of maintenance, however, have been noted by
archaeologists and conservation specialists over the years (Hueber 1992;
Korfmann 1992a), and more recently by Ladstaetter and Riorden. Ladstaetter
notes the importance of site-wide maintenance at Ephesos as opposed to the
more common monitoring of only monuments along the tourist path,
particularly as it later led to costly interventions that could have been prevented
(Ladstaetter 2016:544). The recent re-anastylosis and re-conservation projects
are considered part of a wider site maintenance programme. Riorden, on the
other hand, who worked at Troy for many years, states that their 20 years’ work
has taught them the importance of continuous care and maintenance in addition
to a “commitment to current best practice” (Riorden 2014:436):
Low-mechanical bond mortars will not last forever. Consolidants do
more harm to these fragile walls than good and should be avoided. The
best approach is to perform annual minor repairs – it was done
originally, millennia ago, and throughout time, with these construction
types; there is no “hi-tech” solution yet which can replace these time-
honored approaches.
Monitoring and maintenance are referred to in the ERM reports within the
context of annual checks carried out at the beginning of excavation seasons to
ascertain damage over the winter period and carry out necessary repairs. At
Hattusha, the periodic maintenance of the reconstructed city wall takes place
usually every two years, depending on the severity of the previous winter, over
a period of two months with six workers (Figure 4.17) (Schachner pers. comm.
263
2015). In addition to monitoring the physical condition of exposed remains,
shelters can be checked for efficiency and performance, although this is not
readily mentioned. One of the exceptions is Çatalhöyük. The North Shelter in
particular has created a conservation problem by causing adverse conditions
for the buildings it is covering, and the situation is monitored periodically272
(Hodder and Lingle pers. comm. 2015).
Figure 4.17 Maintenance of the city wall (before and after; same season), Hattusha (the author
2015)
Maintenance during the excavation is significantly more achievable and more
common than off-season monitoring. Noteworthy in this context are the ‘post-
excavation strategies’ employed at Sagalassos since 2005, which involves
mortaring, capping and structural consolidation of newly exposed architectural
remains, as well as those excavated in previous seasons (Waelkens & et. al.
2012).
Year-round monitoring systems, on the other hand, are quite rare. One
exception is Ephesos where a team is in place to check buildings periodically
and intervene where necessary273. There have been preliminary steps at
Çatalhöyük to create a separate team to respond to urgent issues that could
272 Especially controlling relative humidity became a problem and caused mudbrick surfaces
to detach (Çamurcuoğlu 2009:140–141; Pye & Çamurcuoğlu Cleere 2009:43).
273 Re-conservation projects, which are considered as part of a site-wide maintenance
programme, were mentioned earlier in this chapter.
264
arise outside excavation periods, but this has yet to be realized. Otherwise, a
project was carried out to devise deterioration terminology to monitor
deterioration and previous conservation applications, and more recently, 3D
imaging has been incorporated into the monitoring system.
4.1.1.2 Site presentation
The earliest efforts of site presentation274 within the time-frame of this research
begin to be referred to in written sources (marked by increased information in
the ERMs and dedicated sections) in the late 1980s, during which
‘archaeological park’s and ‘open-air museum’s appear as emerging themes
adopted at Hattusha, Yumuktepe and Arslantepe. Site presentation is seen to
become a more pressing issue for a growing number of sites from the mid-
1990s onwards, principally at those that have been excavated for longer
periods, such as Gordion and Hierapolis, while various new excavations, such
as Çatalhöyük and Yumuktepe discuss site presentation early on in their
projects.
On the whole, however, the 1980s and early 1990s present a period in which
site presentation is more ad-hoc, with the occasional installation of information
panels and creation of visitor paths. From the 2000s, these interventions
gradually become parts of more holistic planning or management processes,
where specific visitor routes are designed and in some cases visitor
expectations are studied.
The primary types of presentation techniques involve a variety of physical
interventions and planning, including but not limited to the clearance of
scattered architectural blocks and spoil heaps, visitor safety and site security
measures, preparation and installation of information panels, designation of
274 Undoubtedly, architectural conservation interventions (in view of employed techniques and
selected buildings), discussed in the section above, play a significant role in the presentation
of sites but are not the focus of this section.
265
visitor routes, and construction of site museums/visitor centres, as well as
maintenance of the said routes, panels and facilities.
The use of information panels and design of visitor routes are the most
commonly observed forms of site presentation. There are frequent references
in the ERM reports to the installation of information panels in front of selected
buildings and particular vistas. Routes may be designed based on specific
themes (as at Hierapolis) or the time envisaged it would take to tour the site
(as at Sagalassos). They can also help channel and guide tourists to visit sites
more mindfully, and thereby limit their negative impacts on the site, as was the
case at Hierapolis (D'Andria 2006b:116).
Visitor routes also indicate a more holistic interpretation of sites. An example
is Arslantepe, where in collaboration with semiotics experts from the
University of Palermo, the team aimed to communicate the historical phases,
spatial formations and functions of the complex (Frangipane 2010:207). The
visitor route was conceived as “a transformative path for the visitor, who not
only changes his knowledge of the past, but also, in a deeper perspective,
perceives substantial links with it and transforms his or her approach to the
present.” (Mangano 2010:208). To that end, the team installed information
panels leading to the site from Orduzu Village by which means they sought to
engage visitors and pose questions, thereby stimulating their visit (Mangano
2010:209; Frangipane 2013, November).
Presenting various aspects and multiple layers of sites, such as destructions and
different occupations, without centring on a particular historical phase is an
approach observed at some sites. This is evident, for example, at Hierapolis,
where the team interprets the geological and natural history of the site as
significant factors in its development. This values-based approach informs
their conservation and presentation decisions, and manifests itself in their
interventions, such as at the Nymphaeum of the Tritons, where a wall that
collapsed due to an earthquake was preserved as evidence of past earthquakes
266
(D’Andria pers. comm. 2011). The team decided against full anastylosis as it
would not only erase the “seismic history of the area” but also obstruct the
views into the landscape (D'Andria 2006b:120). So, a partial anastylosis was
carried out. Similarly, the Bath-Basilica was only consolidated and kept as it
was to display it as a testament to the history of seismic activity at the site
((D'Andria 2009:401).
Various teams have gone beyond the archaeological core to incorporate the
wider landscapes into their visitor routes, such as at Sagalassos, where
production areas were included, at Göbekli Tepe where specific locations
outside the excavated area were added to present the site as part of a Neolithic
landscape. At Doliche, the route is intended to connect the site with other
religious sites in Gaziantep.
Although less common, a more recent approach, particularly since the early
2000s, is to incorporate 3D/virtual reconstructions into visitor routes to
enhance visitor experience. In many respects, 3D reconstructions have become
integral with archaeological research; however, their use in site presentation
does not usually go beyond the research-phase. Such researches were carried
out at Sagalassos and Hierapolis, for example –a similar project exists for
Pergamon, but it is not clear whether the excavation team were involved in its
design. At Kyme, the director is particularly keen on creating a 3D virtual
museum.
Visitor/information centres and/or site museums can significantly enhance
visitor perception of the site. Various places where they were built include
Troy, where an historic building was re-used, and Çatalhöyük, Kaman-
Kalehöyük, and Sagalassos, where new buildings were constructed. Troy is
one of the earliest examples, where the Semple House was restored in the early
1990s to provide a space for visitors to access information about the site. At
Çatalhöyük, the on-site visitor centre has been one of the focal points of a visit
267
to the site. The most comprehensive example in this context is the on-site
museum built at Kaman-Kalehöyük.
While technology is advancing at a fast pace, local communities living near
the excavated rural sites may not be able to access such technologies.
Acknowledging this fact, Çatalhöyük’s team have purposely utilised what they
termed ‘low-technology’ methods, such as exhibitions prepared with the locals
(ed. Hodder 2000:190). Periodic change of installations and information panels
as new information is interpreted, and use of innovative presentation
techniques, such as the texture board, are some of the presentation techniques
employed at the site.
Presenting multi-layered sites, as all of the examined sites effectively are, can
be quite arduous in some cases. Legibility becomes an issue, particularly at
sites such as Troy where it is difficult to transmit the existence of multiple
phases to visitors. Sites with mudbrick buildings or where excavation
techqniues require digging at great depths make legibility a bigger issue. These
have been tackled at Çatalhöyük, for example, by displaying certain buildings
and areas. A more recent project involved studying visitor behaviour to
enhance presentation. At Kaman-Kalehöyük, in contrast, visitors are directed
to the on-site museum, where visitors and locals can get a variety of
information about the site. Another inconvenience, particularly for preclassical
sites, can be the lack of stories linked with these sites or specific buildings with
which locals or visitors can associate themselves. An example of the way this
has been tackled comes again from Çatalhöyük, where research has led the
team to develop exhibitions and publications on themes that would be most
relevant to locals for them to make sense of the archaeological site.
4.1.1.3 Management planning
Planning for conservation involves forward and strategic thinking, taking into
consideration a variety of issues that impact sites. In this respect, management
plans have become an important means of conservation internationally. Since
268
the early 2000s, management planning has firmly entered conservation
practice in Turkey, particularly with preliminary studies such as the one carried
out for Ephesos by the Austrian Institut für Touristische Raumplanung and the
management plans for Hierapolis/Pamukkale and Çatalhöyük. These are early
examples that not only pre-date the change in the legislation that introduced
management planning in 2004 but also the amendment in the World Heritage
Operational Guidelines in 2005 that made it compulsory to have management
plans for WHSs.
According to the relevant regulation put into effect in 2005, preparation of
management plans is the responsibility of MoCT for archaeological, natural
and historic conservation areas, and the local authority for urban conservation
areas. As such it is not an obligation for excavation teams to prepare
management plans but their participation as one of the stakeholders is of
utmost importance. The responsible authority is required to set up an advisory
board, as well as a coordination and monitoring board to oversee the process.
The plan can be prepared either by the relevant authority or be outsourced. The
boundaries of the plan are determined by the relevant authority after a
consultation process –the plan boundaries can differ from conservation area
boundaries.
The present research revealed that management plans are not very commonly
used as conservation tools. The plans mentioned above, which preceded the
2005 regulation, were prepared generally on the initiative of the excavation
teams themselves. Since the mid-2000s, however, especially since the
requirement of management plans for WHS nominations, preparation of
management plans is invariably linked with such processes.
There has been a particular emphasis on management plans since the 2010s.
They have been prepared for a number of the researched sites:
• Çatalhöyük (second plan) 2013
• Aphrodisias 2013
269
• Gordion 2013
• Ephesos 2013
• Pergamon (draft plan) 2013
• Göbekli Tepe 2014
The plans for Çatalhöyük, Ephesos, Pergamon and Aphrodisias were prepared
as part of their WHS nomination dossiers275 with varying degrees of support
from the excavation teams. Göbekli Tepe, Gordion and Troy’s management
plans, on the other hand, are predominantly research exercises rather than
official management plans, which MoCT can utilise in nomination processes.
Depending on whether they are management plans recognized officially by
MoCT or are mainly research exercises, their preparation may or may not
involve consultation. The regulation calls for a participatory process, and
therefore, at Çatalhöyük, for example, unlike the first management plan that
preceded the law amendment, the 2013 plan preparation was guided by an
Advisory Board and approved by a Coordination and Monitoring Board, as
required. The process involved a stakeholder meeting where parties were asked
to bring to the table their views and visions on the site and their perceived
problem areas and the opportunities they saw (The Ministry of Culture and
Tourism 2013). At Aphrodisias, the consultation process entailed various
meetings including an experts’ meeting to confer on the issues that needed to
be dealt with and identify stakeholder groups, to which universities,
conservation councils, private consultants/experts, as well as representatives
of MoCT and Geyre Foundation were invited (Karaman 2013:VII). The
analysis phase was supplemented with a widely attended stakeholder meeting
(including the excavation director, representatives of MoCT and Geyre
Foundation, site manager, academic experts, mayors, museum director, local
275 As in the case of Çatalhöyük, excavation teams can make substantial contributions to the
nomination dossier.
270
gendarme etc.) during which site problems and responsibilities of each party
were discussed (Karaman 2013:IX). There were also meetings with the
workers of the excavation and the inhabitants of Geyre to obtain their opinions
and recommendations.
4.1.1.4 Conservation principles and standardization
There is evident desire to adhere to international principles and guidelines,
most prominently the Venice Charter for architectural conservation work. This
research also revealed certain degrees of a standardization of conservation
interventions at various sites. Also noticeable is the process through which site-
specific principles were developed, sometimes over many years.
Principles of architectural conservation
Principles and approaches regarding architectural conservation were referred
to in various publications especially those relating to the overall conservation,
interpretation and presentation of sites. Directors stressed the importance of
research and international guidelines, with the most widespread and cited
principles being those of the Venice Charter including minimum intervention
and alteration, reversibility/retreatability, honesty/scientific and technical
accuracy, and distinguishable new interventions. They can be put into practice
differently, as observed earlier in this chapter. Hierapolis provides an example
where successive directors, D’Andria in particular, have been very vocal about
complying to internationally recognized principles, and have founded their
interventions on proper understanding of buildings as exemplified in this
statement concerning their work at the Martyrion (de Bernardi Ferrero
1992:136):
Revealing and understanding a building goes beyond knowing all the
principles of project preparation. It is almost as if it is a redesign of the
building. At the octagonal Martyrion, the attributes of the building’s
plan were reassessed by investigating its architectural and decorative
271
features. This process is one of the fundamental requirements of
restoring a building.
Hierapolis’ director also stressed the importance of a holistic perspective and
proper research, speaking of their work at the theatre, and stated that buildings
should be researched and interpreted after their excavation, and only then
should their restoration project be prepared and implemented (D’Andria pers.
comm. 2011).
Since its publication in 1995, The Segesta Declaration on the conservation and
re-use of ancient theatres has been the main set of guiding principles during
this process (D'Andria 2006c:82). Discussions and approaches on
conservation, presentation and re-use were presented by the Italian team during
the Hierapolis International Symposium in 2007 (to mark the 50th anniversary
of the Italian mission) –an event that focused specifically on the restoration
and management of ancient theatres276. A charter defining re-use principles was
written following the restoration of the theatre, a long-time focus of the team
(D'Andria 2013, November).
Similarly grounding his work on international principles, Goodman’s
conservation guidelines for Gordion were in line with international principles.
They involved minimum intervention, maximum retention of original
materials, presenting all phases of the site, proper pre- and post-intervention
documentation, and differentiation of new materials from the original
(Goodman 2002:212).
A noteworthy example of the way principles for a specific type of intervention,
anastylosis, were developed comes from Sagalassos. The main conservation
approach demonstrates adherence to international guidelines, as well as
concern for the impact of such projects in the wider landscape. Architectural
276 For the proceedings of this symposium see eds. Mighetto, Sobrà & Masino (2012).
272
conservation principles have been developed since the earliest projects in the
1990s and include minimum intervention, respect and preservation of the
original structural system as a historical value, which also entails refraining
from over-strengthening the structure –where it might cause more damage in
the case of a disaster– and the use of harmonious new materials (Ercan, Patricio
& van Balen 1997:423–424; Torun & Ercan 2013:37). The team assesses
possible anastylosis projects according a various criteria that include factors
such as availability of original material, structural condition, state of
preservation, and budget (Torun & Ercan 2013:29–33). Some important
questions that informed the decision-making process of anastylosis at
Sagalassos are “Why are we doing this work? For whom are we doing the
anastylosis? What will we learn if we re-erect this building?” (Torun pers.
comm. 2012) –questions that not only relate to the building itself but its
contribution to the landscape, as well as the fields of archaeology and
conservation277. A central issue that Torun&Ercan highlight is the relationship
between “visibility and tourism generated income” and anastylosis projects.
They maintain that ‘scientific concerns and questions’ should be at the heart of
anastylosis projects. They also remind that anastylosis is in fact only “one of
the methods of conservation at archaeological sites” that should be part of a
“wider conservation programme, linked to the ‘sustainable management’ of
the site” (Torun & Ercan 2013:33). Therefore, they propagate a holistic
approach for anastylosis that is based on values-based heritage management
(Torun & Ercan 2013:34):
Any rebuilding activity on a site should, on the one hand, take into
account the results of an analysis of the ‘values’ the structure in
question bears, and, on the other hand, the specific characteristics and
the significance of the site and landscape it belongs to. At both scales,
277 See the section on The Arch of Claudius as an example on how its anastylosis project
developed (Waelkens & et. al. 2014).
273
these values should take into account the viewpoints and expectations
of diverse stakeholders.
Principles for architectural conservation are heavily related to the level and
acceptability of interventions, which continue to be debated, particularly with
regards to reconstructions. These can become quite contentious as the long
history of arguments for and against them demonstrates (Erder 1994; Jokilehto
1995, 1999; Stanley-Price 2003, 2009; Araoz 2011). Reconstructions are at
times considered as ethical barometers of appropriate site conservation and
presentation. For example, “The Practical Guidelines for Site Conservation
Work at Troia: A Handbook” attests to the way reconstructions are perceived
(Riorden 2009):
Material assemblies presented as reconstructions in the ruin and not
subjected to prior testing could make us vulnerable to criticism and
could indicate to the world that we in Troia have a frivolous attitude to
our work there.
At Göbekli Tepe, conservation policies described in the management plan
assert that repairing existing remains should be the priority over restoration or
reconstruction, and that if certain elements no longer exist, their reconstruction
should be sought only in exceptional circumstances “where it helps retain
and/or enhance the cultural significance of the Site” (Schmidt et al. 2014:96).
The plan stresses that “reconstructions, ‘re-enactments’ or ‘disneyfication’ of
the Site are to be avoided as this would be disrespectful to the cultural
significance of Göbekli Tepe” (Schmidt et al. 2014:8).
The attention on reconstructions was particularly pertinent in the discussions
held as part of this research. At almost half of the sites, directors and/or
conservation professionals, referred to reconstructions to elucidate their
position when describing their conservation projects –with a preference not to
reconstruct. For example, E. Pernicka stated (pers. comm. 2011):
274
At Troy we want to preserve, not to reconstruct… Our main principle
is not to have reconstructions. We use reconstruction drawings on
information panels instead.
Other directors displayed a similar approach:
I am always looking to preserve the site. We do consolidation. People
do not like reconstructions. They like ruins but in good condition.
Our aim is to consolidate, not to reconstruct.
We want to protect the site and we do not prefer doing large-scale re-
building projects.
These comments demonstrate that at certain sites teams have a tendency
towards consolidation and minimum intervention as the preferred options for
architectural conservation.
Standardization
This research has revealed that standardization of both architectural
conservation processes, such as stone conservation or mud-brick conservation
programmes, and planning processes, such as the DAI-Modul, can be
observed. Sagalassos presents a useful case study, as do a number of other
sites.
In the early years of the excavations at Sagalassos, there was a variety of
conservation teams with different conservation approaches (Torun pers.
comm. 2012). This, in particular, demonstrates the importance of devising and
employing a holistic conservation approach among teams working at the same
site at the same time –a small number of teams, such as at Sagalassos, has
prepared site-specific guidelines for conservation work. The standardization of
architectural conservation interventions at Sagalassos involved definition of
overlapping phases of post-excavation actions including (Torun pers. comm.
2012):
275
• pre-intervention documentation
• identification of deterioration and structural issues
• definition of conservation interventions
• implementation
• post-intervention documentation
The team has also strived to develop consistent and repeatable interventions
for similar problems observed across the site (Waelkens & et. al. 2012:251) so
that there would be pre-defined interventions that could be carried out
independent from team members (Torun pers. comm. 2012). Information
generated during these phases was integrated into the recently created
Sagalassos Integrated Information System (SIIS), where information about the
site is stored for subsequent assessments including conservation decisions.
At a larger scale, the recent ‘site-wide condition survey’ at Çatalhöyük resulted
in a common terminology on deterioration, which will be especially useful for
standardizing assessment processes in the future. The DAI-Modul, tested also
at Pergamon, presents another example of standardization. This new tool,
which allows data storage, dissemination, sharing, and updating, was
developed to support the preparation of management plans at archaeological
sites in DAI’s remit and through it to develop an “institutional reflex” for future
planning processes (Göçmen & Tezer 2014:385).
Developing conservation principles
Troy presents a particularly noteworthy example that demonstrates the long
process of developing conservation principles. Significantly, it is also an
example where the main aim was to balance conservation, presentation and
excavation. In the early 1990s, soon after he began excavating at Troy, the
director Korfmann requested the assistance of the Ministry of Interior Affairs
276
in Baden-Württemberg, who assigned Filgis and Mayer278 from the
Landesdenkmalamt (State Monuments Authority) with the task of visiting the
site to observe the state of the ruins and advise on their conservation (Filgis &
Mayer 1992:83). Significantly they advised a gesammtkonzept that balanced
tourism and conservation. They recommended the incorporation of
conservation into excavations279, and encouraged personnel continuity, as, in
their view, knowledge of the site brought with it the ability to make difficult
decisions (1992:102).
Hueber’s views, who joined the Troy team in 1992, corresponded to Filgis and
Mayer’s, in that he too was mindful of the increased relationship of tourism
and conservation. He similarly called for a gesamtkonzept rather than
fragmented individual conservation interventions (Hueber 1994:123). In his
view, conservation measures needed to slow down deterioration while also
making the ruins legible, and referring to the Venice Charter he recommended
that “everything must be done to enhance the perception of ruins but without
falsifying their information value as real documents” (Hueber 1994:122). To
accomplish this, he emphasized the importance of an inter-disciplinary
conservation team consisting of archaeologists, restorers, bauforscher, geodata
and museum specialists etc.
Based on this accumulated conceptual and practical experience at Troy,
Elizabeth Riorden penned the “Practical Guidelines for Site Conservation
Work at Troia” in 1996 as “a practical guide for the day-to-day operations”
(Riorden 2009). The document, translated into Turkish, defined the
organizational structure of the ‘site conservation group’, gave details on how
278 Filgis, from the Archaeological Conservation section, and Mayer, from the Building and
Arts Conservation section spent two weeks at Troy to make observations (Filgis & Mayer
1992:83).
279 The pair carried out a condition survey and proposed conservation interventions for the
Trojan layers (Troy I-IX) and specific buildings. They made suggestions on how specific ruins
should be approached, and proposed a new visitor route with locations of information panels,
and prepared an emergency to-do list Filgis & Mayer (1992:86–101).
277
to carry out documentation (including before, during and after stages), and how
conservation implementations should be carried out.
Again in 1996, N. Stanley-Price was called in as a consultant in cultural
heritage preservation, to enable “consensus from experts” (Riorden 2014:446).
Based on a site visit, discussions with the project staff and preliminary visitor
surveys, he penned a 24-page report titled “Conservation, Restoration and
Visitor Information at Troia, Turkey, 1996”. He recommended a management
plan (possibly the first reference in relation to Troy), and that architectural
conservation should focus on consolidation, as well as considerations for a
Troy Museum and a national park designation (Stanley-Price 1996:21). Similar
to Filgis & Mayer and Hueber, Stanley-Price advocated against reconstructions
at the site and recommended other forms of conservation and engagement. This
particular approach has been followed since and was re-iterated by E. Pernicka
(pers. comm. 2011), the-then director of the excavation, and R. Aslan
(2010:179), the-then assistant-director.
4.1.1.5 Review
The variety of conservation work that has been carried out, as well as the
diversity of techniques and approaches, demonstrate that archaeological sites
are indeed laboratories of interventions (Şahin Güçhan 2014:XVIII). These
different interventions not only represent different approaches in conservation
but also change the interpretation of sites (Doughty & Orbaşlı 2007:51).
Among the researched sites, there are those where conservation efforts went
beyond routine conservation and consolidation treatments to engage in
introducing new techniques. Çatalhöyük presents one such project that enabled
numerous scientists’ collaborative efforts to preserve the site through site
documentation and visualisation, fabric conservation, public participation, and
management plans etc. New technology was integrated into site conservation
and used for site monitoring purposes. The first management plan was a
catalyst for MoCT to add the site on its WHS Tentative List and was an
278
influential document for the management plan definition in the amended Law
no:2863 (Atalay et al. 2010:11; The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:26).
Other noteworthy examples are the biocide application at Sardis and the soft
capping technique at Gordion.
At various sites including Çatalhöyük, Troy and Sagalassos, a conservation-
excavation-presentation balance is actively sought. At Troy, for example, the
director’s holistic approach led to the integration of conservation with the
archaeological project very early on. It represents one of the earliest projects
examined as part of this research to take on such an approach. At Sagalassos,
this has been recently carried forward through a heritage management
perspective that focuses on regional development.
Conservation approaches and techniques applied at a site can change over time,
demonstrating that conservation is a continuous and developing process. The
development at Gordion, for example, depicts the move from no significant
conservation work in the early years of the project towards interpretation of
the site as a “landscape” and “living thing” (Miller 2012:253) that places the
site within a “regional cultural landscape” (Matero 2012:230).
The variety of architectural conservation interventions at Ephesos presents
another example to changing conservation approaches at one site. As aptly
described by Pirson & Bachmann (pers. comm. 2011), the site “can be
interpreted as a ‘conservation approach museum’” in contrast to Pergamon
where “conservation is homogenous in its approach”. Çatalhöyük is another
site where different conservation techniques were tried, this time for mudbrick
conservation, including reburial, chemical consolidation, shelters, and
replastering. Some of these interventions, such as chemical consolidations and
shelter buildings, created certain problems, so the recent approach is more
along replastering with the use of local resources.
This research also demonstrated that sites of similar characteristics have been
approached differently in terms of fabric conservation and site presentation.
279
This is most evident in the mound excavations of Arslantepe, Çatalhöyük,
Kaman-Kalehöyük and Yumuktepe. The conservation techniques at
Arslantepe, consistent over the years, centre on wall consolidation and
protective roofs. The director, M. Frangipane, considers these to be the perfect
solutions for protection of mudbrick architecture, and is opposed to wall-
capping with new stones or mudbrick, asserting that they too will deteriorate
and cause the original material to fail (Frangipane 2013, November). At
Yumuktepe, on the other hand, walls have recently started to be protected using
mudbrick capping. In terms of site presentation, all four sites show differences.
Yumuktepe’s directors interpreted the site as an archaeological park from the
onset and prepared designs to that effect, and although this has yet to come to
fruition, it has been an intent for many years. Similarly, the Çatalhöyük
excavations began with presentation as one of the three important aspects of
the project (the other two being excavation and conservation). Site presentation
constantly evolved as further information was revealed. Visitors benefit both
from experiencing the site by visiting excavated areas under the comfort of a
shelter, and from the site museum, and can observe both the excavation process
as well as conservation process. At Arslantepe, on the other hand, an
archaeological park was created only recently, as part of the new shelter
project. M. Frangipane is critical of archaeological park projects that start after
a few seasons (pers. comm. 2015) and states that the formation of the site’s
story requires prior interpretation of the site, and archaeologists can transmit
information only when there is adequate information (Frangipane 2010:207):
…it was our awareness that in our possession we had acquired
information and knowledge of fundamental historical and
anthropological importance, which therefore had to be shared with
others.
The site presentation approach at Kaman-Kalehöyük, meanwhile, is distinct
because the site itself is not the focus of presentation efforts. The mound is
essentially where the excavation takes place and visitors are neither expected
280
nor encouraged to tour as there is no relevant signage or orientation. The focal
point is the fully-equipped site museum, tranquilly located within a Japanese
garden, where it is possible to get detailed information about the site and
observe finds.
The use of management plans is a relatively new phenomenon. There are those
that can be considered as research, which usually do not involve participatory
processes but contribute to officially recognized management plans down the
line. In terms of principles and standards, particularly in relation to
architectural conservation interventions, most teams emphasize principles that
parallel the Venice Charter, but its interpretation varies from site to site, which
is evident in the level of interventions, as well as materials and techniques used.
At various sites, there are efforts to standardize conservation interventions and
planning processes to enable consistency in the decision-making processes and
their results.
4.1.2 People in the conservation practice
There are several aspects in relation to the actual people who conduct
conservation work280. Firstly, the practice is carried out by professionals from
various disciplines depending on the different types of conservation activities.
Some conservation professionals may work at different sites, demonstrating a
certain level of professional mobility. Noteworthy is the way certain
individuals can be identified as ‘standard setters’, in that their guidance paved
the way for specific approaches at particular sites. Lastly, the existence of
advisory bodies adds another control mechanism at several sites mainly to
ensure adherence to international conservation principles in architectural
projects.
280 Earlier publications examined within the context of this research reveal very little about
people working on conservation, while later ones, particularly those penned by team members
on the history of conservation at their respective sites are more forthcoming.
281
4.1.2.1 Professions and remit
The field of archaeological conservation has grown into a multi-faceted
network of professionals working on different aspects of the practice.
Particularly from the late 1970s and early 1980s, archaeologists have
recognized that conservation work required expertise. Excavation directors
employed specialists, typically artefact conservators, architects,
bauforschers281, and stonemasons. The development of the field of
conservation since then has called for the involvement of other professions in
the wider scheme of conservation of archaeological sites, especially with the
growing scope of heritage conservation that embraced communities and
encouraged the communication of heritage. The professions that are most
commonly observed include but are not limited to:
• Architectural documentation: archaeologists, bauforschers, architects,
conservation architects
• Architectural/site conservation: stonemasons, stone conservators,
bauforschers, architects, conservation architects
• Site presentation: archaeologists, architects, landscape architects,
experts of other related disciplines
• Management planning: conservation architects, city planners,
archaeologists, experts of other related disciplines
• Community engagement: archaeologists, anthropologists, conservation
architects, experts of other related disciplines
281 The profession, loosely translated as ‘buildings archaeologist’ or ‘building researcher’, was
developed in Germany particularly for archaeological research and is based on the
understanding that a building is a “material source of knowledge” (Technical University of
Brandenburg/BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg 2015). See also Wood (1994).
282
At all of the examined sites, there are conservation professionals who work on
a variety of issues ranging from architectural fabric conservation to presenting
the site to the public. The required human resources for these tasks are either
drawn from the excavation teams (i.e. they form part of the main team), who
may or may not be present for the entire excavation season, or they are external
consultants engaged over short/long-term contracts for specific projects.
Routine architectural documentation, i.e. survey and recording, can be carried
out by a variety of professionals as well as students of architecture and
archaeology. One of the common practices is to establish partnerships with
universities with departments of architecture. Among the long-standing
partnerships is the Polytechnic University of Turin’s involvement at Elaiussa
Sebaste and Hierapolis, and the University of Cincinnati’s at Troy.
In various cases, if the documentation process is part of a conservation project,
this phase may also be outsourced. At sites such as Aphrodisias, Ephesos and
Sagalassos, documentation work has been undertaken by local and foreign
companies or universities that specialise in this type of work. They may be
involved on a project basis (Ephesos) or become a more permanent fixture of
the main team (Sagalassos). More recently, the use of 3D-technology for the
recording of buildings and areas has become more widespread, which requires
expert commercial companies and university departments. Examples of such
collaboration include Karlsruhe Technical University’s involvement in
Göbekli Tepe and the University of California’s work at Çatalhöyük.
Architectural conservation interventions are carried out by stonemasons, stone
conservators, architects and conservation architects, and may require further
collaboration with other disciplines such as engineering. As in the case of
documentation processes, there can be long-term partnerships with universities
and/or companies. Examples are the Istituto Centrale di Restauro di Roma
working at Arslantepe and Kyme, and again the Polytechnic University of
Turin working at Elaiussa Sebaste and Hierapolis. There are also project-based
283
partnerships, as was the case for the conservation of the Andron A at
Labraunda with METU. In cases where further expertise is required, such as
in lifting and re-erecting blocks, expert firms can be hired to carry out the task.
At Göbekli Tepe, for example, a German architectural company advised on the
re-erection of the massive pillars.
There can be dedicated (conservation) architects who have been part of the
archaeological team for longer periods, such as at Aphrodisias, Pergamon,
Sardis and Sagalassos. A different and newer system is in place for excavations
run by the DAI, where since 2010 architectural conservation projects have
begun to be prepared by an in-house project office282 at DAI’s Istanbul
branch283. They mainly concentrate on large-scale projects at classical sites
such as Pergamon and Miletos, but have also worked at Göbekli Tepe
(Schachner pers. comm. 2015).
One of the more outsourced architectural projects is the design and
construction of shelters. More often than not, they have been obtained through
architectural competitions in their own countries (for example at Ephesos,
Göbekli Tepe, and Troy). At Ephesos, the latest shelter covering Terrace
House 2 was obtained through a closed competition, and at Troy the final
design was acquired through a student competition. At Çatalhöyük, on the
other hand, an architectural office from Turkey was commissioned to design
the two permanent shelters. Shelters have also been designed in-house. An
example is the shelter for Bau Z at Pergamon was designed and supervised by
the German architects Martin Bachmann (DAI) and Andreas Schwarting
(former team member). At Sardis, the new shelter covering the Synagogue and
fortifications was also designed by architects of the team.
282 This unit “Architectural History Research and Site Management” is also working on
management plans in collaboration with universities and Turkish authorities (Pirson 2015:45).
283 Two or three part-time architects working under the supervision of Martin Bachmann.
284
Maintenance usually involves removing overgrown plants, periodic
monitoring of exposed buildings and carrying out necessary interventions.
There are several references to annual checks at the beginning of each season
to observe any changes or damages that may have occurred in the winter and
to establish buildings that require urgent consolidation and repairs. The
cleaning of vegetation, which is carried out by male workers, again early on in
the season, has recently been taken over by women at Gordion. For almost all
of the sites maintenance is carried out ahead of the field season and there are
no mechanisms whereby off-season monitoring and maintenance can be
carried out. It is only at Ephesos where there is an annual site monitoring and
maintenance team in place, consisting of several workers trained by a
conservator. Çatalhöyük’s director Ian Hodder had intended for a team to carry
out periodic checks on the buildings when the excavation and conservation
team were not on site but so far this has not been realised.
Presentation of archaeological sites is one of the tasks that has traditionally
been resolved using in-house personnel, generally archaeologists and
architects. In most cases, the task involves designing information panels and
defining visitor routes. In the past decade, however, aspects of site presentation
have been outsourced to universities or companies (such as holistic studies of
the site to establish visitor routes or design of site-specific presentation
techniques etc). Two such examples are firstly at Arslantepe, where the
archaeological team worked with semiotics experts from the University of
Palermo to establish ways of presenting the excavation to the public. At Priene
an architectural office from Berlin was invited to advise on site presentation
principles and techniques.
Çatalhöyük presents a distinct case where a Site Visualisation Team has been
created. Supervised by two academics from the universities of Southampton
and York, it works specifically on presenting the project to the public both on-
site and at the on-site visitor centre. This team, consisting mostly of
archaeologists specialising in digital archaeology, has been working since
285
2009 and designed a number of museum displays, information panels and
exhibitions to reach and engage the public.
Management plans are prepared either by external architectural or city
planning offices or by members of the archaeological team. The party initiating
the management plan is a defining factor during this process. If the intention
to prepare a management plan comes from the excavation team, it is most likely
to be authored by an academic (generally from universities affiliated with the
excavation) and undertaken as a research project, such as the first management
plan of Çatalhöyük, prepared during the TEMPER Project and authored by an
architectural consultant and academic. A more recent example is the plan for
Gordion where the process was directed by a conservation architect and
academic from METU. Otherwise, there are cases where MoCT requires
management plans for sites that have already acquired WHS status but were
inscribed before management plans became mandatory. A case in point is
Troy, where after such a request, an architect from the University of Cincinnati,
who was a long-time member of the archaeological team, authored the plan.
For management plans prepared for sites in connection with World Heritage
List nominations the relevant authority is responsible for supervising the
process by either preparing the management plan in-house or outsourcing it.
After an abortive attempt by a group of English architects to prepare a
management plan for Aphrodisias, the plan was prepared by academics at
Mimar Sinan University in line with a protocol signed between MoCT and
Geyre Vakfı284. At Ephesos, it was a planning office from Ankara (Egeplan)
that authored the plan. The second management plan for Çatalhöyük was
essentially prepared by MoCT in collaboration with the archaeological team.
All these plans were prepared in consultation and collaboration with the
284 Lack of social skills, cultural misunderstandings and differences between Turkish and
English planning context were cited as the reasons for their work to be terminated before
completion (Shoup 2008:260–262).
286
archaeological teams of each site. At Pergamon, where the management plan
was also part of the World Heritage List nomination process, the leading
authority was the local municipality as the preparation of the plan fell within
its remit owing to the combined conservation status of the site (archaeological
and urban). A World Heritage Office set up by the local municipality assumed
responsibility to prepare the plan. Most of these recent management plans,
especially those for World Heritage List purposes, were prepared by local (i.e.
Turkish) academics and professionals or by MoCT in collaboration with
respective archaeological teams.
At some of the sites, longevity of conservation teams is aspired in order to
standardize conservation interventions. This, however, is not a unanimously
accepted position. Hodder, who twice changed his entire archaeological team,
holds a different view on team longevity. Speaking of the reason behind this
critical decision, he stated that team members stop being proactive after a while
but that new people come with fresh ideas (Hodder pers. comm. 2015). In a
similar vein, he engaged an external conservation consultant from the UK,
who, he says, as a well-travelled and seasoned conservator, was in a better
position to observe the needs of the site from the outside.
4.1.2.2 Standards-setters
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several excavation directors, mostly from
newer excavations such as Kaman-Kalehöyük (1986), Troy (1988), Gordion
(1988), and Çatalhöyük (1995) sought external advice from conservation
experts (Table 4.2). These were either from their home countries or stationed
elsewhere. They were required to define conservation standards and principles
with the intention of incorporating site conservation into the general structure
of excavation programmes. These professionals, who may or may not have
been experienced in the archaeology, material remains or conditions of Turkey,
were invited to assess sites and individual conditions, and to develop
conservation principles and appropriate methodologies –and in some cases,
they became team members of those excavations for certain periods of time.
287
Table 4.2 External advice
Sites Experts
Troy Filgis&Mayer, F. Hueber, N. Stanley-Price
Çatalhöyük F. Matero
Gordion B. Feilden, A. Walls
Kaman-Kalehöyük G. Wharton
For example, B. Feilden and later his colleague A. Walls were invited to
Gordion in the late 1980s and early 1990s to carry out condition surveys of the
timber chamber inside the Tumulus of Midas and those of exposed buildings,
and to advise on possible conservation strategies. Feilden suggested grouting
as a possible technique to stabilise the Early Phrygian Gate and Walls
recommended the construction of ramps in order to buttress fragile walls. At
Troy, the director Korfmann viewed the site from a regional perspective and
considered it to be part of the Troas cultural heritage. He therefore consulted
early on the German Ministry of Interior Affairs in Baden-Württemberg to
advise on conservation principles to be followed at the site. The Ministry
assigned the experts Filgis and Mayer who in their report assessed the physical
conditions at the site to make recommendations based on the Venice Charter
and advised a ‘gesammtkonzept’ for conservation to be established to balance
tourism and conservation. In subsequent years, F. Hueber, who then became
involved with Troy for a number of years, and N. Stanley-Price were invited
to make further assessments and recommendations.
4.1.2.3 Mobility and exchange
One of the relatively common aspects of conservation practices at the
examined sites is professional mobility/exchange of good practice (Table 4.3).
Experience in dealing with similar conditions, knowledge of building materials
etc. have led to the engagement of several professionals in a number of sites.
Noteworthy examples are F. Hueber, the Austrian architect, known for his
anastylosis of the Celsus Library at Ephesos (with V. M. Strocka, 1970-78)
288
who also worked to establish conservation principles at Troy; Klaus Nohlen,
the German bauforscher, who worked at the Temple of Trajan (1980-1995)
and also proposed a conservation concept for Didyma; the stonemason
Christoph Kronewirth, who, after 13 years at Temple of Trajan in Pergamon
(Nohlen 2014a:213–214), and experiences at Priene, came to work at Didyma,
where he has been working ever since. These routes of engagement can be
primarily between excavations run by the same country but can also transcend
such boundaries.
Table 4.3 Mobility of conservation professionals
Experts Sites
Arzu Öztürk Aphrodisias Ephesos
Christoph Kronewirth Didyma Pergamon Priene
Emanuele Romeo Elaiussa Sebaste Hierapolis
Frank Matero Çatalhöyük Gordion
Friedmund Hueber Aphrodisias Ephesos Troy
Kent Severson Aphrodisias Çatalhöyük
Gülay Sert Arslantepe Çatalhöyük
Hiroko Kariya Kaman-Kalehöyük Sardis
Klaus Nohlen Didyma Pergamon Letoon
Klessing Architects Hattusha Priene
4.1.2.4 Advisory bodies
Advisory bodies are formed at the instigation of the foreign institution leading
the archaeological excavation and can oversee all conservation work or focus
only at specific buildings285. At DAI-run archaeological excavations, for
285 Although in a context of a sponsoring body, there is a “Restoration Board” working in an
advisory capacity within the Ephesus Foundation (Turkey). It consists of three members:
Zeynep Ahunbay (ITU), Sarah Thompson (Herculaneum Restoration Project), and Sabine
Ladstaetter. This board is one of four advisory boards created to support the Board of Trustees
(Ephesus Foundation 2010:8).
289
example, conservation projects are initially inspected by a committee, creating
a mechanism akin to a “quality management system” (Pirson&Bachmann pers.
comm. 2011). Since the mid-2000s the Baudenkmalpflegeausschuss (The
Advisory Committee on Historical Monuments), an internal committee within
the DAI, ensures high-quality standards in design, structural performance,
security etc. (Pirson&Bachmann pers. comm. 2011), and examines
architectural conservation projects from all DAI-run excavations and assesses
them in relation to “the conservation plan, the technology envisaged, the
safety, feasibility and even the actual need for given conservation measures, as
well as their prioritization relative to other projects to be carried out by the
Institute”286 (DAI n.d.a). The committee, whose members287 are bauforschern
and conservation specialists from within DAI and those working elsewhere
academically or commercially, gathers once a year to discuss submitted
projects and, if necessary, visits the sites. Once the committee approves a
project, the director of the relevant excavation sends it to the regional
conservation council (Pirson&Bachmann pers. comm. 2011).
There are also examples of advisory committees for specific projects at
Ephesos (theatre) and Pergamon. In the latter, a building commission
(Baukommission) was set up by the DAI in 1976 (Schmidt 1993:173) to advise
on and monitor the partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan. It met once a
year to discuss the project and funding options288 (Nohlen 1999:101). The
commission played a critical role in the development of the project, especially
with regards to the level of intervention.
286 One of the most recent examples is the conservation project of the Roman Baths at Priene
(Filges 2015:184).
287 Current members include the president and general secretary, the head of the architecture
department and the head of the cultural asset protection department, all at DAI.
288 This commission later guided the interventions at the Temple of Apollo in Didyma (Tuchelt
1995:343).
290
4.1.2.5 Review
Foreign-run excavations have involved experts in their projects since the early
years of the investigated period from the late 1970s. Architectural conservation
is understood to be a separate discipline that requires special knowledge. There
are even cases when directors refer to not carrying out a conservation
intervention because there was no expert present that season. Especially in the
late 1980s and early 1990s, there are instances that demonstrate that working
with experts was also considered a matter of prestige289.
It is clear that experts have been invited to advise on building-scale or site-
scale conservation, either in the early stages of new excavations or at a time
when conservation became a more pressing issue for longer-running
excavations, especially from the early 1990s onwards. They were exclusively
foreign experts with or without experience in Turkey. Experts bring with them
their own experiences and knowledge of materials tried and tested elsewhere,
as was the case in the use of specific mortars at Aphrodisias and Hattusha.
There is no information about whether local experts were consulted during
these stages. It must be noted, however, that there are well-established links
and cooperation with Turkish universities on artefact conservation.
While standard-setters, as well as most of the experts who worked at these sites
subsequently, were mainly foreign, some level of localization is visible in the
case of management plans. Unless plans are guideline documents for actual
management plans they are most likely to be prepared by local specialists.
289 One example relates to those who carried out the partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan
at Pergamon. Interestingly, although their names and professions are not mentioned in the
Pergamon’s ERM reports (they do appear in their other publications), they are acknowledged
in the ERM reports of other excavations, where these people worked subsequently, and it is
obvious that their collaboration is considered to be of major importance. See Didyma’s ERM
reports (1993 and 1994 seasons) and Xanthos-Letoon (1991-92 seasons). See also Aphrodisias
1985 season for another example.
291
Knowledge of local legislations and requirements are key factors for local
involvement.
4.1.3 Forms of community engagement
This section investigates the relationships of archaeological teams with local
communities290 to understand the various forms of engagement that directly or
indirectly foster public participation and involve communities in
archaeological and conservation practices291. Also discussed is the level of
sharing of information accumulated from the archaeological excavation but,
because of the scope of this research, this is limited to websites and social
media, excluding forms such as publications and exhibitions292.
Almost half of the directors interviewed commented on the good relations they
had with local communities. Some pointed at the longevity of local
participation in archaeological work where projects have been continuing for
several decades, while others emphasized the mutual benefits of working
together. M. Frangipane, the director of Arslantepe, was one of those who
emphasized generations of local contribution to their project. She views them
as the guardians of the site and remarks that there has never been an illicit
excavation at Arslantepe (Frangipane pers. comm. 2015). The villagers, she
says, are linked to the site more emotionally but notes that this may be
changing as the younger generation aspires to leave Orduzu:
290 In this context, communities particularly denote inhabitants of villages local to where
archaeological excavations take place, from where workforce is sourced, but in a more general
sense (especially in terms of capacity building and information sharing) it also includes the
host country (i.e. Turkey) as a whole.
291 Information on the forms of engagement come mainly from interviews carried out with
directors and conservation professionals, as well as publications by the teams, and to some
extent the ERM proceedings.
292 Several directors, when asked about what they do to engage with the community, also
mentioned that they publish articles in popular magazines such as Aktüel Arkeoloji; however,
investigation of such publications is outside the scope of this research.
292
We have good relations with the villagers. The majority of villagers
(men) have been working with us. In the past, they were in agriculture.
They were always there. They were linked to the site in a more
emotional way but now the young don’t want to stay in the village too
long. They find jobs and leave. But even while at university, they come
to work at the site every year. This means entire families are involved
–from granddads to grandsons. They protect the site; they are the
guardians.
Gordion presents an original case, in the sense that the project itself has
partially created its own local community, owing to the fact that when
excavations began in the 1950s, people who came to work at the dig, originally
living elsewhere, decided to settle in Yassıhöyük (Gürsan-Salzmann & Erder
2010:6). There is a strong sense of devotion to Gordion among the closest
village, Yassıhöyük, and some workers from the village continue to come
during their annual leaves even though they have full-time jobs elsewhere (del
Bono pers. comm. 2015). This connection also means that even when long-
time workers no longer live in Yassıhöyük, they are still preferred.
Various forms of engagement with local communities were identified, which
range from public meetings to specifically designed projects to foster
community interest and development, and those activities that can be
interpreted as capacity building:
• Community education
• Outreach and development projects
• Capacity building / skills training
• Confidence building and empowerment
• Digital engagement
4.1.3.1 Community education
Activities organised by archaeological teams that specifically aim to enlighten
locals on archaeology, culture and heritage are becoming more widespread in
293
recent years in Turkey: site visits, or regular education activities are some of
the more common forms of community education, but public meetings293 is the
simplest and most typical.
Public meetings are not especially common among the excavations examined.
They were carried out at a small number of sites, and only recently – and even
then, there is limited information about their contents and continuity. Several
examples include Göbekli Tepe, Pergamon, Aphrodisias, Elaiussa Sebaste, and
Kaman-Kalehöyük. For example, at Göbekli Tepe, the director Klaus Schmidt,
who acknowledged the villagers’ contribution to archaeological research,
stated that the community needs to be well-versed about the site and of
archaeology in general (Schmidt 2009:173):
As the only village in the vicinity of Göbekli Tepe, Örencik Village and
its inhabitants form an inseparable whole with Göbekli Tepe both
because of their role in the discovery of the site and their collaboration
with the excavation team over the past 12 years. The increasing interest
in Göbekli Tepe in recent years has led to the opinion that the villagers
of Örencik, who lead considerably traditional lifestyles, should be more
informed on archaeology and Göbekli Tepe.
The team arranged an archaeology conference for the village students, and
organised a trip to the Şanlıurfa Archaeological Museum and Haleplibahçe
Mosaic Excavation (Schmidt 2009:173–174)294.
293 These usually involve presentations by the director or members of the team about the site
and their latest findings, and may include activities for children, which can entail mock
excavations, games, handicraft projects, painting competitions etc., but they do not necessarily
entail a collaborative research design. Location and timing of these meetings, as well as
presentation contents and methodologies used in transferring this information, can be
determining factors for interaction; however, it most cases there is no information about these
in publications.
294 There is no further information to ascertain continuity. This may be part of an education
program to which the GHF refers. Set up for the village school children, it involved seminars
in their school, as well as site visits and trips to the museum (Global Heritage Fund 2015).
294
Other than public meetings, excavation teams organise site visits for locals, or
for those working at the site. One such example is at Sagalassos where post-
season site visits aim to inform the workers and thereby create a sense of
ownership.
Kaman-Kalehöyük and Çatalhöyük have had consistent educational
relationships with locals, especially with children, through a variety of
activities. S. Omura, the director of the excavation at Kaman-Kalehöyük has
been training local children in archaeology and culture since the first season,
although surprisingly little is published on these activities (Figure 4.18). His
interaction with children eventually led to the foundation of the Kaman-
Kalehöyük Museum, which since its opening has served as a venue for both
professional training purposes, as well as activities for children. The director
explains (Omura 2010) his reasons for his regular meetings with local children:
I began the classes because I felt that there was no point in having them
work without an understanding of what an archaeological dig was. In
the beginning, I repeatedly instructed them on excavation skills. They
did not have any experience, so it was necessary to explain how to use
shovels and wheelbarrows. From this starting point, we went on to other
things such as how to classify and record artefacts, surveying
techniques, and so on, and as we taught them their level of
understanding improved considerably.
Figure 4.18 S. Omura during a class (Omura 2010)
295
Omura (2010) describes how these meetings can benefit the long-term
protection of the site and that not all should rely on heritage conservation laws:
Every Sunday afternoon I act as a museum guide. Sometimes some
children working at the excavation, especially those in middle school,
will appear with their families. The sight of them describing the
artifacts to their mothers is heartwarming. It is very touching to see
them proudly explaining each item. I am sure that they will protect the
site and museum throughout the years ahead, and never let them be
neglected. I believe that the passing of laws to protect cultural
properties is one way of keeping them safe, but it is more important to
educate community members on the value of cultural properties,
through the creation of institutions such as museums.
At Çatalhöyük, annual archaeology workshops/summer schools have been
organised since 2002 to introduce children to archaeology, heritage and
Çatalhöyük. A day-long workshop usually involves a trip to the Visitor Centre
and the reconstructed Neolithic house, a mock-dig, and production of various
handicrafts (Ian Hodder et al. 2009:166). Participants are children from across
the Konya province, occasionally from orphanages. This programme has more
recently grown to include local adults.
A new initiative at Gordion, the Cultural Heritage Education Program (CHEP),
began in 2014 and involves training local high school students in archaeology
through practical experience at the site, visits to other sites in the area, and
lectures by team members including the director.
4.1.3.2 Outreach and development projects
Outreach projects in this context are proactive and targeted projects that
directly aim to engage local communities (children, women, adults) with
archaeology and the site itself, and go beyond the format of public meetings.
These are mostly observed from the late 2000s onwards:
296
• Çatalhöyük – TEMPER Project: awareness-raising project that
resulted in educational programmes and materials (2002-04)
• Sagalassos Public Archaeology Project: meetings with
stakeholders and understanding their views, values, visions,
expectations (2008)
• Saga-lasun Project: engaged young people in the archaeological
site and focused on identifying ways in which archaeological
research could benefit the local community (2009)
• Çatalhöyük community-based participatory research project:
resulted in comics series, newsletter and community’s own
displays in the Visitor Centre (2010)
From the 2010s, projects aimed at local socio-economic development also
contributed towards involving local communities with archaeology and
heritage, although this was not their primary aim. These projects were initiated
by other organisations, mainly local authorities, but excavation teams
contributed to their development and implementation to a certain extent:
• Ağlasun District sustainable alternative tourism Project (2013)
• Arslantepe: Sustainable Tourism Project (2015)
4.1.3.3 Capacity building
Some of activities that take place during archaeological excavations are
capacity building activities in themselves, “either by design or by accident”
(Orbaşlı 2013:244). In architectural conservation work especially,
stonemasonry is a desired and required skill; therefore, creating a local
workforce in stonemasonry is a common phenomenon in archaeological
excavations. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement that serves the
conservation team, in that there is consistency in the workforce without having
to recruit or train new people each season, as well as the locals who can learn
a transferrable skill and thereby create or contribute to their livelihood.
297
Stonemasonry training requires long-term commitment on both sides, and as
such can be regarded as a form of capacity building.
Archaeological excavations carried out by DAI, especially where long-term
architectural conservation projects were implemented, are known for their
“Bauhütten”295 approach (DAI n.d.c) –or “stonemason schools”296 (Nohlen
2014a:220). Nohlen (2014a:207) refers to the importance of having a
consistent and knowledgeable in-house workforce, who due to their long
experience at the site would be in a much better position to react to unexpected
circumstances than an externally appointed firm. This approach enabled expert
stonemasons to train a local workforce who then continue to work at the
excavation at which they were trained or work at other excavations297, and also
train the next generation of stonemasons (Orbaşlı 2013:245; Nohlen
2014a:207). Pergamon’s Temple of Trajan was the first project where this was
initiated and it is a tradition that continues to this day, most recently during the
reconstruction of sculptural decoration at the Red Hall (Pirson 2012:123).
Hattusha is another site where a local workforce specialised in building
restoration was formed (Seeher & Schachner 2014:140).
Similar training occurred at various other archaeological excavations, such as
Elaiussa Sebaste. The director referred to the way they created a skilled
workforce (Equini Schneider pers. comm. 2015):
295 The term originally refers to the medieval practice of ‘mason’s/building lodges’, which
denotes a group of artisans who “instead of a businesslike firm of architects” are in charge of
the “financing, design, and construction of projects”, from which Bauhaus derived its name
(Alofsin 2006:19).
296 Wolf Koenigs, the former director of DAI's Istanbul branch, however, refers to financial
limitations that made it impossible for them to offer permanent positions to workers they
trained (Nohlen 2014a:219–220).
297 For example, those educated at Pergamon went on to work at Priene and Didyma.
298
We trained 6-7 workers for our restoration work and they have
continued to work with us since our first campaign. Our usta taught
many workers and other excavations want to work with him.
The longevity of the workforce is beneficial, as the director of Aphrodisias
remarked: (World Monuments Fund 1999:37):
The main effect of the Tetrapylon project was the training of a local
team of skilled workmen who can handle marble. The core group of 15
men is still at work in Aphrodisias, reconstructing monuments under
the supervision of two architects and two restorers.
Perhaps a more purposeful form of capacity building, i.e. not performed for the
particular benefit of one archaeological team, is the training of conservation
professionals through various bespoke events and apprenticeships, which
effectively signifies capacity building at a larger scale. At Kaman-Kalehöyük,
the archaeological team and conservation team organised workshops, field
schools, and symposia for Turkish conservation professionals, students and
museum professionals, as well as an annual conservation student internship
programme. The “Practical Guides for Archaeological Conservation and Site
Preservation” of the JIAA should also be remarked on in this context: written
by professional conservators in English and Turkish, and focusing mostly on
material conservation issues, they are valuable sources of information for
students and practitioners.
Other than these examples, there are cases where various archaeological teams
and institutions have contributed to the formation of local libraries or have
created bursaries for local students.
4.1.3.4 Confidence building and empowerment
Archaeological work usually has an impact on the men of local settlements,
who are employed as workers at the dig with a day-to-day contact with the
archaeological team. Women are traditionally employed for domestic chores
299
such as cooking and cleaning, which limits their interaction with the site or
archaeological and conservation processes. More recently, however, there is a
growing interest in involving local women in the archaeological research and
conservation processes. At Çatalhöyük, local women worked on sorting
residue during the excavations and aided ethno-archaeological studies, while
at Gordion, they continue to clean weeds at the site before the excavation
season, and at Kaman-Kalehöyük they work on the pottery. At Gordion, the
conservation management plan was instrumental in the establishment of a
cooperative directed by local women that “facilitates their involvement in the
production of handicrafts and foodstuffs from their own garden crops for sale
to visitors” (digitalGordion 2011).
A new project at Sardis, continuing since 2014, involves women in the
conservation of the Temple of Artemis. They were trained and employed to
apply a biocide on stone surfaces to remove organic growth. Their involvement
has been hailed as a success by both the director and the women themselves298
(Cahill pers. comm. 2015; Kariya pers. comm. 2015). The director, Nicholas
Cahill was content with the way things progressed (pers. comm. 2015):
I loved the way this project has involved local women from Sart. They
are the wives and daughters of workers. They work as sigortalı and they
feel so proud.
4.1.3.5 Digital engagement
Websites and social media have grown to become additional interfaces where
information about an ongoing archaeological excavation can be shared with
298 An informal discussion with those while they were at work in 2015 revealed how pleased
they were with having been given this task. One of the women relayed their collective view:
“We started cleaning last year. They told us we worked very well and fast. We are very pleased
with our work and we wish it would be an all-year job. We love working here.”
300
the public at large299. Communicating both archaeology and conservation of
cultural heritage with local communities through digital media can provide a
number of opportunities. For the scope of this research, the existence of
websites and social media accounts of excavations are taken as forms of digital
community engagement and awareness-raising, and they are assessed in terms
of diversity of information, available languages, and their general format
(interactive or static)300 (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 Websites and social media
Site Website
La
ng
uag
e
Co
nse
rva
tio
n
Tea
m
Vid
eos
So
cia
l m
edia
Aphrodisias www.nyu.edu/projects/aphrodisias/
ENG - - - - www.arch.ox.ac.uk/APH1.html
Arslantepe web.uniroma1.it/arslantepe/ ITA x - - -
Çatalhöyük www.catalhoyuk.com/ ENG x x x x
Doliche www.doliche.de
GERT
R - - - -
Elaiussa Sebaste www.antichita.uniroma1.it/node/5854
ITA - x - - elaiussa.uniroma1.it/
Ephesos www.oeai.at/index.php/excavation-
history.html
GER
ENG x x - x
Gordion sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/
ENG
TR x x x -
Göbekli Tepe www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/21890
GER
ENG - - - -
Hattusha www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/48178
GER x - - -
299 Virtual archaeology projects and 3D reconstructions of buildings, some of which are
available online, may also be considered as forms of engagement with communities but they
were not included in this section.
300 Making information available online in itself does not necessarily make it accessible to the
public. Here, only the availability of information was checked, not whether contents were fit
to a diverse set of users and audience. The information presents the situation in 2016.
301
Hierapolis
www.hierapolis.unisalento.it/home_pa
ge ITA
ENG - - - -
antares.ibam.cnr.it/atlante-hierapolis
(Hierapolis Atlas)
Kaman-
Kalehöyük
www.jiaa-
kaman.org/en/excavation.html
ENG - - - -
Kyme www.kyme.info/joomla/index.php ITA - - - -
Labraunda www.labraunda.org
FR
ENGT
R
x x - -
Pergamon www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/14186
GER - - - -
Priene www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/48590
GER - - - -
Sagalassos
www.sagalassos.be
NL
EN
FR
TR
x x - -
www.tursaga.com/en
Sardis sardisexpedition.org/en
EN
TR - - - -
Troy
www.uni-
tuebingen.de/troia/deu/index.html
(former website, no longer
operational) GER
ENG - x - -
http://classics.uc.edu/troy/
Projekt Troia: link from the University
of Cincinnati (former website, no
longer operational)
Yumuktepe - - - - - -
Aphrodisias, Çatalhöyük, Hattusha, and Sagalassos were the first among the
examined sites to have websites, mostly created in the late 1990s and early
2000s. Their number increased considerably since the 2010s and as of 2016,
18 of the 19 sites have websites. These are mostly individual websites
generally hosted by their affiliate university or foreign institute such as
Aphrodisias, hosted by the New York University, Elaiussa Sebaste by
University of Rome, and Gordion by the University of Pennsylvania. There are
also websites that are independent, such as Çatalhöyük, Doliche, Kyme,
302
Sagalassos. The excavations affiliated with OeAI and DAI appear in their
respective institute’s website. For example, DAI’s excavations in Turkey
(Didyma, Miletus Göbekli Tepe, Hattusha301, Pergamon, Priene) form part of
DAIs “main projects” (www.dainst.org/forschung/projekte).
Italian-run excavations can be collectively accessed through the website
“Italian archaeological, anthropological and ethnological missions abroad”
(www.missioniarcheologiche.it/en/en/europe-africa-asia-area/mission-
52.html). But each excavation also has their separate website: Arslantepe and
Hierapolis’ websites are each hosted by the main affiliated university. There is
also a separate website for the digital atlas of Hierapolis
(antares.ibam.cnr.it/atlante-hierapolis).
The level of information in these websites varies significantly; from those that
contain basic information about the site and the excavation, to those that
provide detailed information about the site, its history, archaeological research,
and conservation work. Their contents are either specifically created or can be
short descriptions supported with publications in pdf format.
Çatalhöyük’s website (www.catalhoyuk.com) is an example where detailed
annual reports, team member blogs, excavation database etc. and a lot of raw
data are openly accessible. Similarly, Gordion’s website provides a wealth of
information not only on the archaeology of the site but also on conservation
efforts (site conservation reports of 2005-2014 can be accessed as pdf files with
a link to UPenn’s Architectural Conservation Laboratory).
In most of the websites, however, information is rudimentary at best, with very
little to show for the breadth of activities that continue at these sites every
season. Contents are not updated regularly. Even projects that have been
301 Previously Hattusha had a separate website (www.hattusha.org), created in the early 2000s,
and was one of the first excavation projects to go online. This tri-lingual (German, Turkish
and English) website has since closed.
303
continuing for many decades may have only web pages rather than websites,
displaying only basic information.
About half of the websites contain information about conservation work to
some degree. This suggests that conservation is not considered as important as
archaeological research in terms of its presentation to the public. Significantly,
only four websites have information in Turkish and some are poorer versions
of foreign language texts. Eight websites contain multi-lingual (English,
German, French etc.) texts.
The way most of these websites are structured and designed is not conducive
to digital interaction or communication. Various social media accounts appear
to bridge this gap through which the public at large can be informed of and
comment on certain developments. But at present, websites do not appear to
be considered as means of engaging with the public, particularly in the case of
local communities.
4.1.3.6 Review
The research into forms of community engagement reveals the limited number
of sites where community-related activities took place until the last few years
–though there is an increase from four to seven sites in the early 2010s.
Stonemasonry training is emphasized at a number of sites and is a more
prevalent form of engagement; however, despite being a capacity building
activity, it does not necessarily lead to knowledge transmission about the
archaeological site to locals as a whole or engagement with their perceptions
or considerations regarding the site.
The most common type of engagement is public education and awareness-
raising, which during the 1980s and 1990s began with activities at Kaman-
Kalehöyük and Çatalhöyük. TEMPER was a major project of which
Çatalhöyük was a participant, and this also focused on community education.
The community-based participatory research project at this site went a step
further in that it centred on engaging the community directly with the research
304
design, where the aim was to make the archaeological process more relevant
to the community and drawing out aspects of the site that they wished to learn
more about. In this respect, Çatalhöyük can be viewed as a testing ground for
many of these community-related activities.
The projects at Sagalassos portray a commitment to working with the local
community and to shaping the archaeological process, as well as conservation
agendas accordingly. Several directors stated that they have noticed some
benefits of communicating with the villagers beyond the dig or engaging
women in more skilled labour, which in view of the examples presented above
and in the previous chapter, can aid conflict resolution, foster a sense of
ownership and enhance protection of the site. Having said that, at most of the
excavations, the relationship of the locals with the archaeological process and
heritage conservation is limited to male workers employed for excavation and
restoration work. In only a small number of sites is the scope of these relations
widened to engage women –other than household chores.
While information is shared through public meetings, involving locals in the
research design remains a very novel approach. On the other hand, the use of
websites and the internet in general for engaging communities does not appear
to have been fully exploited.
Activities that directly seek to engage communities in archaeological and
conservation processes, beyond those who actively work for the actual digging
and restorations, have taken place at Anglo-American-run excavations, such
as Çatalhöyük, Gordion and Sardis, as well as Belgian-run Sagalassos and
Japanese-run Kaman-Kalehöyük. In Central European projects (German and
Italian-run), on the other hand, there is a noticeable lack of such projects, where
the main emphasis remains on stonemasonry training. This is especially
referred to, for example, in several publications on Pergamon in relation to a
positive outcome of continued conservation work at the site.
305
4.1.4 Funding of conservation
The examined sites receive their primary research funding either from their
national archaeological institutes (DAI, OeAI, IFEA, JIAA) or from
universities. A variety of other organisations fund archaeological
excavations302, and among those, some fund conservation work. The following
main groups of organisations support conservation work303:
• non-profit organisations
• private companies
• foreign public bodies
• friends’ societies and foundations
• private individuals
• Turkish public bodies
• other (European Union, World Bank, UNDP)
4.1.4.1 Sources
Non-profit organisations
The J. M. Kaplan Fund, World Monuments Fund (WMF), Global Heritage
Fund (GHF) and Samuel Kress Foundation304 are the major organisations in
302 Funding of archaeological excavations and conservation work may extend to include
exhibitions, publications etc.; however, they are outside the scope of this research.
303 Collecting information on funding of conservation projects has not been very
straightforward as neither academic nor popular texts particularly refer to such sources. This
lack of information is more latent in publications that are primarily on archaeological research
rather than on conservation-related work. An obvious example is the ERM proceedings, in
which, rather expectedly, funding bodies are mentioned in relation to the entire process of the
archaeological project: research, excavation, publication, conservation including maintenance,
site presentation etc., but generally without a distinction as to which were used for
conservation. Having said that, the ERM proceedings proved to be very useful for certain sites
while in some other cases very little information could be obtained from any of the sources
consulted. It was not possible to ascertain the percentage of conservation interventions within
the total budgets of excavations but for some excavations it can be assumed that they constitute
a significant expenditure.
304 It is worth noting that these four organisations collaborate with one another by either
funding or managing the other’s projects.
306
this context, having collectively supported 11 of the 19 sites. They mainly
support architectural conservation projects. WMF and Samuel Kress
Foundation both began supporting projects in Turkey in the late 1980s, while
GHF began in 2004, followed by the Kaplan Fund in the late 2000s.
The Kaplan Fund305 supports conservation projects through its Historic
Preservation Program306, which was created in 2008 (J.M. Kaplan Fund 2016).
Projects in the Aegean basin, i.e. Turkey and Greece307 were the initial
beneficiaries, with funding being made available mainly for architectural
conservation308 but also for training of archaeologists. Between 2009-15, the
Kaplan Fund supported a number of projects in Turkey (J.M. Kaplan Fund
2016), 10 of which are at the archaeological sites examined as part of this
research309. Again, the projects mainly concern architectural conservation, all
of which received multi-year support:
• Aphrodisias: Anastylosis of the Propylon
• Çatalhöyük: Conservation and training program
• Ephesos: Temple of Hadrian
• Gordion: Conservation of the City Gate and the conservation of the
mosaics of Megaron 2
• Göbekli Tepe: Site protection and security
• Hierapolis: Conservation of the sanctuary of St. Philip the Apostle
305 Founded in 1945, it supports causes related with environment and migration.
306 Recipients of the Historic Preservation grants can be universities with which the directors
of archaeological excavations are affiliated, or several non-profit organisations which assume
an administrative role for these projects. An example of the latter is the Global Heritage Fund
that obtained a grant for the site protection and security project in Göbekli Tepe.
307 The rest of the grants were given to projects in the USA, and more recently to those related
with museum training and risk preparedness in Syria and Iraq (J.M. Kaplan Fund 2014).
308 The duration of funding usually ranges from 12 months to 36 months, where the total
amount of funding for one project can reach $100.000.
309 Other archaeological sites where the Kaplan Fund has supported conservation work, but
which are not within the scope of this research, are Tel Tayinat (Canadian-run), Kınık Höyük
and Karkemish (Italian-run).
307
• Labraunda: Conservation and restoration of the Andron A
• Pergamon: Conservation of the Gymnasium
• Sardis: Conservation and cleaning of the Temple of Artemis
• Troy: Conservation and column-reconstruction in the Agora
The Samuel H. Kress Foundation310 initiated its European Preservation
Program (KFEPP) in 1987 to support conservation projects across the
European continent, and appointed WMF as the administering body to review
and decide on grant applications of this Program311 (World Monuments Fund
1996:16). Five excavations studied as part of this research (Aphrodisias,
Çatalhöyük, Gordion, Sagalassos and Troy) were among those supported by
the KFEPP, as well as through other grants of the Kress Foundation in
Turkey312. Aphrodisias received funding for the anastylosis of the Tetrapylon
in 1988, the stabilisation of the columns of the Temple of Aphrodite in 2004,
and for archaeological conservators in 2013, while Çatalhöyük received a grant
for the North Shelter construction in 2006. Gordion received grants for
organizing a conference on the preservation of the Midas tomb and its timber
furniture in 1992, and for the preparation of a management plan, among other
conservation work since 2000, while at Sagalassos, it funded the utilisation of
new techniques in site documentation and conservation in 2004. Troy received
funding for the preparation of a management plan in 2008.
310 Founded in 1929, it is a New York-based non-profit organization.
311 In addition to the KFEPP, Kress gives other grants to support documentation, artefact
conservation, architectural restoration, site conservation, and preparation of management
plans, as well as conferences and publications. Funds range between $10.000 and $100.000.
312 The Program also supported conservation work at the archaeological site of Ani, Church of
St. Nicholas in Demre, and the Zeyrek Mosque in Istanbul.
308
The World Monuments Fund313 (WMF) supported projects in Turkey either
through its World Monuments Watch314 programme or other grants created
under its donors’ names315. Of the sites under research here, WMF has
supported Aphrodisias, Çatalhöyük, and Ephesos. WMF’s involvement at
Aphrodisias has spanned three decades and includes the anastylosis of the
Tetrapylon in the late 1980s (as part of the European Preservation Program of
the Samuel H. Kress Foundation), the Temple of Aphrodite (2002), and the
Bouleuterion (2003), and more recently the North Agora and the Hadrianic
Baths through the Robert Wilson Grant316. At Çatalhöyük, WMF contributed
to the conservation of the site (World Monuments Fund 2015b). WMF’s
involvement in Ephesos was related with the preparation of a conservation and
management plan (World Monuments Fund 2015c).
The Global Heritage Fund317 (GHF) has been involved in a number of sites in
Turkey318 since 2004, among which Çatalhöyük, Göbekli Tepe, and more
recently Sagalassos can be mentioned. One of its earliest supports was at
313 Founded in 1965, the World Monuments Fund is a New York-based, non-profit
organisation that supports conservation projects worldwide through its affiliate offices. It
supports these projects with donations it receives from various companies, foundations and
private donors.
314 World Monuments Watch is a program run by WMF to raise awareness of cultural heritage
sites in danger (Ackerman & Palumbo 2014:7908). Inclusion in the WMW does not guarantee
WMF’s financial support, but the organisation has contributed to a third of the places included
in the Watch.
315 Major donors are the American Express Company, (World Monuments Fund 1996:95;
Aramian 2007:64), Samuel H. Kress Foundation (World Monuments Fund 1996:16–17),
Kaplan Fund (Lustbader pers. comm. 2015) and more recently the U.S. Ambassadors Fund
(World Monuments Fund 2015a).
316 “Robert W. Wilson Challenge to Conserve Our Heritage” is a match funding grant
programme initiated in 1998 and continues to support conservation projects.
317 Founded in 2002, GHF is a California-based non-profit organisation that works with an
integrated methodology called ‘Preservation by Design’ combining “master planning,
conservation science, community engagement, and partnerships for management and financial
support for conserving heritage sites” (Global Heritage Fund 2010:10).
318 Other than the sites studied as part of this research, other sites in Turkey, such as Kars and
Ani, have enjoyed the long-term commitment of the GHF. Marchetti (2012:133), the director
of the Italian mission at Karkemish also refers to GHF support.
309
Çatalhöyük319, where GHF funded the conservation of excavated buildings,
various community-focused projects (including new exhibits at the Visitor
centre) and construction of the North Shelter. At Göbekli Tepe, GHF secured
donations from a number of corporations and foundations, including the Vehbi
Koç Foundation and the Kaplan Fund, through which it has been able to
support conservation work (Global Heritage Fund 2012, Lustbader pers.
comm. 2015). It contributed towards the preparation of management and
conservation plans, construction of a shelter building, community engagement,
and conservation of excavated remains. At Sagalassos, GHF’s most recent
involvement in Turkey, the Fund supported the anastylosis of the South-
eastern Gate of the Upper Agora, and intends to finance conservation planning
for the Roman Baths and the anastylosis of the Upper Agora (Global Heritage
Fund).
Among other non-profit organisations that supported conservation is the
German Studiosus Foundation320. In the past decade they have funded the
conservation of Pergamon’s Red Hall and the Gymnasium, and the sphinx face
reconstruction at Hattusha. Other foundations include the Morgan Family
Foundation and Selz Foundation (for the management plan in Gordion), the
Turkish Cultural Foundation (the North Shelter in Çatalhöyük), the Alman-
Türk Ekonomi Kültür Vakfı [Kulturstiftung der Deutsch-Türkischen
Wirtschaft] (for the South Tower of the Red Hall in Pergamon), and the
Sumitomo Foundation.
319 GHF contributed $300.000 to Çatalhöyük and helped generate over $800.000 in match-
funding from companies and foundations in Turkey until 2010 (Global Heritage Fund
(2010:20).
320 Established as a social responsibility endeavour of the travel agency Studiosus Reisen
München GmbH, it is a non-profit organisation supporting cultural, social and environmental
projects outside Germany (Studiosus Foundation n.d.b). The amount of support cannot exceed
€ 10.000.
310
Private companies
Turkish, foreign and multinational companies and corporations continue to
support archaeological sites. More than half of these sites (10) list such
companies as sponsors of their archaeological excavations, including the
following:
• Koç Holding (Çatalhöyük and Sagalassos)
• Konya Cement A.Ş. (Çatalhöyük)
• Borusan (Ephesos)
• FIAT and FIAT-Tofaş (Elaiussa Sebaste and Hierapolis)
• Doğuş Group (Göbekli Tepe)
• Kömürcüoğlu Mermer (Hierapolis)
• Çanakkale Seramik A.Ş. and Akçansa (Troy)
Among Turkey-based sponsors, the Koç Group, through its various companies
such as Aygaz, Tüpraş and Yapı Kredi, comes out as a leading corporation in
support of conservation work at multiple sites. Other companies based in
Turkey usually provide short-term, project-based or one-off seasonal
assistance.
The country of origin and locality of a company can play a role, as is the case
of Fiat, an Italian conglomerate, supporting the Italian-run excavations
(Hierapolis and Elaiussa Sebaste), while Çanakkale Seramik and Akçansa (the
former originates from Çanakkale, while the latter has a cement factory in
Çanakkale) both supported Troy.
The projects supported by the above-mentioned companies mostly involve
architectural conservation projects, including anastylosis and shelter
constructions. While Troy’s sponsors (Çanakkale Seramik, Akçansa and Kale
Group) appear to have been involved for the short-term, such as for the repair
of wooden paths, visitor services etc., Ephesos enjoyed longer-term sponsors
that funded specific projects for a number of years, such as Borusan (the
311
conservation of the Marble Hall in Ephesos) and Aygaz (the anastylosis of the
Nymphaeum).
Various foreign and international banks, insurance companies and other
similar large companies and corporations have contributed financially to
archaeological excavations run by foreign institutions:
• Visa, Boeing, and Shell (Çatalhöyük)
• banks, construction and insurance companies (Ephesos)
• Japanese Tobacco International (JTI) (Hattusha)
• FIAT (Hierapolis)
• Belgian banks (Sagalassos)
• Mercedes-Benz, Siemens, and Daimler-Chrysler (Troy)
Examples to those that funded conservation work are JTI, which fully funded
the reconstruction of a segment of the city wall in Hattusha, the Brussels-based
KBC Bank, which supported the anastylosis of the Nymphaeum in Sagalassos,
the Vienna-based banks Bank Austria, RZB Bank, CreditAnstalt –among
many other Austrian and other companies– which financed the construction of
the latest shelter that covers the Terrace House 2 in Ephesos.
Foreign public bodies
Various foreign public institutions support archaeological excavations in
Turkey, such as archaeological institutes, research academies, ministries, and
universities, some of which support various types of conservation work
including artefact and architectural conservation. An example to the latter is
DAI’s contribution to Göbekli Tepe’s permanent shelters and the conservation
of the South Tower of the Red Hall in Pergamon, and OeAI’s funding of
maintenance and simple consolidation works at Ephesos, as well as emergency
measures regarding architectural remains.
In the case of the Japanese-run Kaman-Kalehöyük, a large portion of
conservation-related work comes from Japanese public bodies. The Japanese
312
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ODA) Official Development Assistance was
behind the museum construction, while JIAA helps fund conservation and
community engagement at the site.
The U.S. Department of State’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural
Preservation321, supported322 Gordion for the consolidation of the Citadel
Gateway (The Ambassador’s Fund for Cultural Preservation 2002:11) and
education projects at Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2009:195).
Friends societies and foundations
Operating both in Turkey and abroad, there are a number of societies or
foundations established to raise funds for specific sites. Six of the examined
sites have such groups that include Friends of Aphrodisias, Friends of
Sagalassos, Friends of Ephesos, Friends of Troy, Swedish Labranda Society,
and Friends of Hierapolis (Associazione Amici di Hierapolis). In various cases,
there can be a number of groups for one site: for example, spread over four
countries, those that support Aphrodisias are the American Friends of
Aphrodisias (USA), Friends of Aphrodisias Trust (London), Aphrodisias
Sevenler (Izmir), and Association des Amis d'Aphrodisias (Paris). Ephesos
similarly enjoys the support of several friends’ associations, including the
Austrian Gesellschaft der Freunde von Ephesos and the American Society of
Ephesos. These can support specific conservation projects, as can be seen with
the Friends of Aphrodisias Trust, which funded several conservation
321 The U.S. Department of State started awarding its first grants in June 2001 with an average
contribution of $15.000 –the figures have grown since and can reach several hundred thousand
dollars. Turkey is one of the 119 countries across the world eligible to apply. The Fund
supports a variety of projects under three categories (cultural sites, cultural objects and
collections, forms of traditional cultural expression) including conservation of monuments and
objects, condition assessments, and management planning (The Ambassador’s Fund for
Cultural Preservation 2002:5). As noted earlier, the Fund is also a donor of WMF.
322 Other supported projects, but which involve sites outside the scope of this research, include
but are not limited to Kinet Höyük’s museum display in Hatay, restoration of the Cappadocian
Gate at Kerkenes, conservation of the Church of the Holy Redeemer at Ani, and the
stabilization of the Ets-Hayim Synagogue in Izmir.
313
implementations, and the American Society of Ephesos, which co-funded
conservation work at the Temple of Hadrian and St. Mary’s Church.
In addition to such societies, there are also foundations formed to support
archaeological research and conservation at certain sites. Examples are those
established for Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Sagalassos, and Troy. The Geyre
Foundation323 (1987) funded the preparation of the management plan and the
building of a museum at Aphrodisias, while the Ephesus Foundation324 (2010)
financed documentation of architectural remains, damage assessment,
conservation of building remains and wall paintings etc. Most likely inspired
by these foundations, the Sagalassos Foundation was founded in 2014 by a
group of Turkish enthusiasts (NNC Haber 2014) but there is insufficient
information to identify the types of projects it supports. Troy has two such
foundations, one established in Germany in 2001 (Tübingen Troia Foundation)
and the other in Turkey in 2004 (Çanakkale-Tübingen Troia Foundation325). It
is the latter that supports site conservation (Troia Vakfı n.d.).
Private individuals
Seven of the sites refer to private donors who support archaeological projects
and at five of these (Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Gordion, Labraunda, and
Sagalassos) they are mentioned specifically in relation to their contribution
towards conservation. They usually lend their support for the long-term rather
than one-off contributions. While the supported projects are diverse, the
general tendency is towards architectural conservation and site presentation.
323 One of the aims of the Foundation is the conservation of excavated remains (Geyre Vakfı
1987:8).
324 It was established by three Turkish companies (Borusan, Eczacıbaşı, Doğuş Holding). and
private individuals “to support and accelerate the excavations” (Foundation Deed p. 1) and
allows for general sponsorships or for sponsorships on a project-basis, provided mostly by
Turkish companies.
325 Established with private donations, as well as considerable contributions from Siemens
Turkey, it is located in Çanakkale in a house restored with funding from local businesses
(Siemens Turkey n.d.).
314
At Sagalassos, anastylosis projects have received such support, and likewise,
a long-time supporter of work at Ephesos funded the projects at the Library of
Celsus, South Gate, and Hadrian’s Gate (Krinzinger 2000b:187).
Turkish public bodies
Foreign-run archaeological excavations are not subsidized by MoCT or any
other public body in Turkey, however, there are cases where MoCT
contributed to certain aspects of conservation and presentation, mostly related
with visitor facilities and landscaping. Among these are the partial re-erection
of the Temple of Trajan in Pergamon in the 1980s-90s, construction of the steel
and concrete supports of the tomb within the Tumulus of Midas in the 1990s,
visitor paths for the latest shelter covering the Terrace House 2 in Ephesos in
2000s, and the visitor facilities and landscaping at Göbekli Tepe in the 2010s.
The contributions of local governorships or municipalities to conservation
work at foreign-run archaeological sites are very limited. There are examples
from two Italian-run excavations, Arslantepe and Hierapolis, where the costs
of constructions of the shelter (former) and scaffolding (latter) were supported
by local authorities. Development agencies have so far supported two projects,
at Sagalassos and Yumuktepe, both of which primarily aim to raise the tourism
potential of their respective archaeological sites and to develop local
economies.
Other
The European Union, World Bank and UNDP have also supported
conservation projects, in particular those that aimed at awareness-raising and
increasing tourism potentials. Beneficiaries of these projects were the
respective archaeological sites and communities living nearby. Unlike other
funding bodies mentioned above, the recipients of grants given by these
organisations are not the excavation directorates but mostly non-profit
organisations and local authorities. In some cases, related archaeological teams
315
played key roles in the project application and implementation phases, while
in others, they were either in an advisory role or their relation could not be
ascertained.
Examples of where it was the archaeological team that generated funding come
from Çatalhöyük and Sagalassos. The earliest grant in this context was
obtained through the TEMPER Project (Training Education, Management and
Prehistory in the Mediterranean). Funded by the Euromed Heritage II
Programme, it was completed in 2004 (Orbaşlı & Doughty 2004:7). A
management plan for Çatalhöyük was within the project scope, which also
entailed development of educational programmes and training opportunities
for professionals. Members of the archaeological team were involved in these
phases. At Sagalassos, one of 20 projects that the World Bank supported
through its Development Marketplace Competition326 in 2009 was the Sagala-
sun Project (Protection and Sustainable Use of Resources: Future for Youth in
Rural Areas), which was prepared by the Sagalassos team.
An example of where an archaeological team contributed to a project that was
initiated by other parties is the Malatya’s Legacy: Arslantepe project327 funded
by the Future is in Tourism Sustainable Tourism Support Fund328 that was
initiated by the UNDP in partnership with MoCT and Anadolu Efes. The
archaeological team worked in an advisory capacity only and was not an
applicant. In the case of the permanent shelters at Göbekli Tepe, that are jointly
funded by the Turkish government and the EU as part of the “IPA Regional
326 The competition was part of World Bank’s “Youth in Turkey: Shaping our Future” scheme
that aimed to highlight problems faced by the younger generation and supported innovative
ideas that uncovered existing potentials (UNDP in Turkey 2009).
327 Another project to be funded in 2015 involved stone masonry training and development of
new souvenir items using Göbekli Tepe as the focus (main applicant Şanlıurfa Chamber of
Commerce and Industry in partnership with the Governorship of Şanlıurfa).
328 The Fund operated for three years between 2012-2015 as part of UNDP’s Inclusive and
Sustainable Growth projects and aimed to “strengthen capacity of local tourism actors and
NGOs to contribute to the sustainable tourism development through partnerships with public
and private institutions” (UNDP in Turkey).
316
Competitiveness Operational Programme in Turkey” (Ministry of Science,
Industry and Technology, DG for EU and Foreign Affairs - Directorate of EU
Financial Programmes 2014:1), the role of the excavation team could not be
identified.
4.1.4.2 Types of projects and their financial sources
An analysis of various projects over the past 35 years can provide an overview
of the types of conservation projects that are funded and sources of funding.
Information regarding 43 projects329 on architectural interventions330
(anastylosis, reconstruction, shelter, other building conservation projects),
management planning, construction of museum / visitor centres, and
community engagement projects is given below (Table 4.5). The listed projects
are those that involve specific designs (i.e. with separate budgets and human
resources). They do not include continuous efforts of maintenance and repair,
as it is not possible to document the latter with the available information.
Table 4.5 Sample projects
329 There may be more funding sources for each project. This list only includes those that were
referred to in the publications.
330 The number of architectural projects in this list far outweighs other types, the main reason
being, when compared with other types, such projects tend to be more in number in the first
place, and also because information is more readily available. Other prominent projects were
also intended to be included, however, no funding information could be found: anastylosis
projects of the South Gate at Ephesos (1979-1988), the Late Hellenistic Fountain House at
Sagalassos (1994-1997), and the shelter of Bau Z at Pergamon (1996-2004).
Site
Anastylosis, partial
reconstruction,
reconstructions
Date Funding source
1 Pergamon Temple of Trajan 1980-1995
(1979-1994) German companies, MoCT
2 Aphrodisias Tetrapylon 1983-1990
WMF
Samuel Kress Foundation
(given to the American
Friends of Aphrodisias)
American Express
317
3 Sagalassos Nymphaeum 1998-2010
L.Baert-Hofman Fund
KBC Bank
Renier Natuursteen
Aygaz
4 Sagalassos Heroon 1998-2009 Artesia Banking Corporation
Group Arco
5 Sagalassos Upper Agora 2016- GHF
6 Aphrodisias Sebasteion (South
Building) 2005-2013 Geyre Foundation
7 Aphrodisias Sebasteion (Propylon) 2012 J.M. Kaplan Fund
8 Ephesos Hadrian's Temple (re-
anastylosis) 2010-2014 Ephesus Foundation
9 Hierapolis Theatre completed
in 2013
MoCT
Fiat-Tofaş
Koç Foundation
10 Hierapolis St. Philips Church 2013 Kaplan Fund
11 Pergamon Gymnasium continues Kaplan Fund
Studiosus Foundation
12 Hattusa City Wall
reconstruction 2004-06 JTI International
13 Hattusa Sphinx Head
reconstruction 2009 Studiosus Foundation
Site
Other architectural
conservation projects Date Funding body
14 Aphrodisias Conservation of the
Hadrianic Baths
2010-
continues
WMF and the Friends of
Aphrodisias Trust in London
15 Pergamon
Red Hall South Tower
(conservation+museum
use)
2005-09
Studiosus Foundation
German Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Alman-Türk Ekonomi Kültür
Vakfı [Kulturstiftung der
Deutsch-Türkischen
Wirtschaft]
16 Göbekli Tepe Site conservation 2013 Kaplan Fund
318
17 Sardis
Conservation and
cleaning of the Temple
of Artemis
2014-15 Kaplan Fund
18 Hierapolis Conservation of the
Sanctuary of St Philip 2013 Kaplan Fund
19 Gordion Conservation of the
City Gate 2013 Kaplan Fund
20 Ephesos Marble Hall in Terrace
House 2 2010- Borusan
21 Ephesos Theatre 2010s Ephesus Foundation (TR)
22 Ephesos
Conservation of the
Wall Paintings in the
Terrace House 2
2010-
continues Ephesus Foundation (TR)
23 Labraunda Conservation of
Andron A 2010s
Kaplan Fund, The Royal
Swedish Academy of Letters,
History and Antiquities
Site Shelters Date Funding body
24 Ephesos Shelter for Terrace
House 2 1995-2000
foreign companies
MoCT (visitor paths etc.)
25 Sagalassos Neon Library 1995-1997
ABB Insurance Company
(later acquired by the KBC
Bank) (also paid for the
conservation of mosaics)
26 Troy G6 Shelter 2001-2003 DaimlerChrysler and Siemens
Turkey
27 Çatalhöyük North (4040) 2007-2008
Yapı Kredi, Boeing, Shell,
Selcuk University, Turkish
Cultural Foundation, Kress
Foundation, Martha
Joukowsky Foundation, GHF
28 Arslantepe Palatial Complex
Shelter 2011 Governorship of Malatya
29 Göbekli Tepe temporary shelter 2015
GHF, German Research
Foundation (DFG) and DAI
(GHF funding from Kaplan
and Koç)
30 Göbekli Tepe two permanent shelters 2016 EU, Turkish Republic
Site Management plans Date Funding body
31 Çatalhöyük first plan 2004 EU
32 Çatalhöyük second plan 2013 MoCT
319
Correlating the sources of funding with types of projects (Figure 4.19) reveals
that architectural conservation projects are supported by all of the funding
source categories. Non-profit organisations primarily fund architectural
conservation projects although they also contribute to the development of
management plans and community related projects. Friends’ societies tend to
support architectural conservation projects, while again, almost all of the
projects supported by companies and corporations are architectural projects.
This ratio slightly decreases with Turkish and foreign public bodies and other
sources of funding (World Bank, UNDP, EU).
33 Troy 2009 INSTAP; Samuel Kress
Foundation
34 Aphrodisias 2013 Geyre Foundation
35 Gordion 2007-2013 TÜBİTAK
Kress Foundation
36 Göbekli Tepe 2014 GHF, DFG
37 Pergamon 2013 Municipality
38 Site Museums Date Funding body
Aphrodisias
on-site sculpture
museum Geyre Foundation
39 Kaman-K on-site museum Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs ODA
40 Çatalhöyük visitor centre VISA, Yapı Kredi
41 Site Community
engagement Date Funding body
Kaman-K various projects JIAA
42 Çatalhöyük various projects
EU, GHF, U.S.
Ambassadors Fund, BIAA,
private sponsors
43 Sagalassos various projects
World Bank, Development
Agency, Leuven Univ.
Research Council Fund
320
Figure 4.19 Sources of funding for project types
It is most likely that projects that are more continuous and are repeated during
each season, such as site cleaning and the odd repair, as well as systematic
artefact conservation, are primarily sourced by affiliated universities and
institutes. Large-scale projects, on the other hand, which usually involve multi-
year architectural conservation work and require substantially more funding,
are usually funded through non-profit organisations and corporations (except
in some of the Italian-run excavations).
4.1.4.3 Types of funding used by countries
A general examination about the funding sources used by each country
demonstrates that German, Austrian, American and Belgian excavations were
successful in engaging funding for conservation from a variety of sources331
(Figure 4.20). In German-run excavations, funding from corporations is
significantly less –in only half of the sites were such contributions identified
(local Turkish companies in Troy, JTI in Hattusha and German companies in
331 The table shows the existence of financial sources for conservation in the last 35 years
according to sources accessed for this research, and not the frequency with which they
supported projects.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
non-profit corporate foreign public
bodies
friends'
societies
Turkish
public bodies
other
Architectural conservation management plans
Community engagement museum/visitor centre
321
Pergamon). Ephesos utilizes sources from almost all of the categories
described above. American-run excavations largely obtained funding from
non-profit organisations and to a lesser degree from private individuals332.
Other cases exist where the U.S. Ambassador’s Fund or friends’ societies
financed several projects.
Figure 4.20 Types of funding utilized by different countries
At Çatalhöyük333, conservation funding comes from corporations, non-profit
organisations (Kress, Kaplan and WMF) and, in the case of the TEMPER
Project, the EU. Similarly, at Sagalassos, funding for conservation comes
primarily from corporate sponsors, non-profit organisations and private
individuals. Community-related projects at this site were financed by the
regional development agency and the World Bank.
332 The only corporate support to be identified for a conservation project in an American-run
excavation was American Express’ contribution to the Tetrapylon at Aphrodisias.
333 It must be noted, however that, in terms funding, Ephesos and Çatalhöyük cannot be fully
representative of Austrian and British archaeological excavations in Turkey, as their relative
fame and extensive media coverage must be heavily related with corporate and private sponsor
interest in these sites.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
UK
USA
Non-profit organisations Companies Foreign public bodies
Friends' societies Private individuals Turkish public bodies
Other
322
Italian-run projects are mainly funded by affiliated universities and their
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is minimal corporate funding. Funding for
conservation projects at the Japanese-run Kaman-Kalehöyük comes primarily
from Japanese public sources and to some extent by a non-profit organisation.
4.1.4.4 Review
This analysis demonstrates the significant presence of non-profit organisations
in the funding scene and the increase in their contributions especially from the
mid-2000s. The majority of the more recent projects have been funded by
American foundations (Kaplan Fund, GHF, WMF) –especially notable is the
Kaplan Fund’s support for 10 of the researched sites over the past decade.
Between themselves, these non-profit organisations have supported more than
half of the researched 19 sites. Large-scale projects, especially those relating
to buildings, are primarily funded by these organisations, as well as
corporations, which suggests that conservation work relies heavily on
philanthropy.
While in terms of Turkish public bodies, the lack of local authority support for
conservation projects constitutes a major gap, whereas the development of
community engagement introduced further types of sources to archaeological
conservation, in that there is a growing number of projects supported by
regional development agencies, as well as the EU. The general objectives of
Turkish development agencies are to support projects for rural and local
development and capacity building (Law No. 5449 Formation of Development
Agencies, Their Coordination and Duties Article 5). The projects supported by
these agencies tend to focus on tourism and increasing local livelihoods; as
such, fostering the engagement of local communities with archaeological sites
is not the primary incentive. These are in line with the growing emphasis of
international donor agencies on socio-economic benefits and regional
development of cultural heritage (Orbaşlı 2013:238), and the “characterization
of heritage places as tools for poverty reduction by development agencies”
(Araoz 2011:55).
323
Public funds are usually inadequate in providing for the conservation of all
archaeological sites in any country. More recent approaches involve public-
private partnerships or encouraging private funding through tax relief and other
benefits, and to create more sustainable funding systems (Naycı 2014:191–
192). In the early 2000s, Turkey introduced new incentives to promote private
involvement; however, lack of consistent information on funding makes it
difficult to state for certain whether Turkish private funding has increased
since. Erciyas dates the emergence of philanthropic presence of large Turkish
companies in archaeology to the late 1990s and early 2000s (2014:280), which
may be linked to these incentives. There are examples, however, of support for
conservation at archaeological sites that precede this, particularly in the case
of Koç Family affiliations, and Koç Foundation in particular334.
Conservation work has become increasingly multi-faceted, both in terms of
requiring professional and qualified people, and the variety and scale of
projects, which increase the necessity for sustainability in funding sources,
especially for the duration of long-term projects. Although lack of information
prevents an assessment on continuity of funding bodies, i.e. how long they kept
supporting conservation work at certain sites, it can be surmised that most
organisations at least support on a project-basis which would mean association
for a number of years.
4.1.5 Discussion / emerging themes
This section has revealed the diversity of conservation techniques and
approaches and how these have changed over time. The level of interventions
and acceptability of conservation practices continue to be major topics of
debate. From the outset of most excavations, it is noteworthy that conservation
was recognized as a distinct field and that experts were consulted to guide and
334 This is excluding the Geyre Foundation, spearheaded by a member of the Koç Family,
which was established in 1987 to support archaeological research and conservation at
Aphrodisias.
324
decide on appropriate conservation principles and priorities. However, the
limited collaboration with local experts should be highlighted. This research
has shown the dominance of non-profit organisations in the funding of
conservation work and the prevalence of corporate funding of architectural
conservation projects, and also the lack of financial support from local
authorities. In terms of community engagement, dedicated projects to
encourage participation are not widespread and those that do exist appear to
vary depending on the nationalities of the respective teams. For example,
Central European-run projects seem to emphasize craftsmen training in terms
of the local community’s involvement, while Anglo-American-run projects are
more prone to engage in awareness-raising and education.
Several themes emerge. Of primary importance is the gradual integration of
conservation into archaeological projects. This is strongly related to the
question of responsibility for conservation, which is the second theme to be
discussed. The increased visibility of conservation in recent years is an
emerging third theme, while the final theme is concerned with the involvement
of local communities in archaeological and conservation projects.
4.1.5.1 Integration of archaeology and conservation
There is a clear and growing integration of conservation processes with
archaeological processes. Two main turning points stand out: the early 1990s,
when site-scale conservation and site presentation begin to be observed more
prominently, and the period from late 2000s, when a significant surge in site
conservation and presentation efforts occurs, culminating in the early 2010s
with the addition of management plans and community-focused projects
(Table 4.6).
During the period that preceded the investigated time-frame, the general
approach towards excavated remains had been to keep them exposed without
any particular planning or funding for their conservation. Exceptions mainly
325
focused on monumental buildings335, such as the major architectural projects at
the Gymnasium at Sardis and the Celsus Library at Ephesos. In the early years
of the investigated period, from the late 1970s until the mid-1980s, more than
half of the selected excavations had yet to start, including at sites such as
Çatalhöyük, Troy, and Kaman-Kalehöyük. At those sites where excavations
were ongoing, conservation work continued to centre mainly interventions on
monumental buildings.
The reconstruction activities at Sardis in the 1970s set a powerful example that
was followed at Ephesos (Bammer 2010:38), and later at Pergamon where “site
presentation would be improved through a reconstruction” (Schmidt
1993:173). The anastylosis projects such as the Tetrapylon at Aphrodisias,
South Gate at Ephesos, and the partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan at
Pergamon are the most noteworthy cases in this period. Also significant are the
first attempts at protecting Terrace House 2 at Ephesos. At Hattusha, on the
other hand, the approach encompassed the interpretation of the site as a whole
based on the concept of an archaeological park, which was probably the earliest
after Halet Çambel’s Arslantaş-Karatepe (Eres 2010a:124–125).
An increase in conservation practices in general is especially visible from the
early 1990s336. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the recognition of
certain deterioration problems at longer-running excavations, as well as
damages caused by touristic use where wall surfaces were exposed for many
decades (at sites such as Aphrodisias and Ephesos); and the start of new
excavations which demonstrate concern for conservation and presentation
from their outset (at sites such as Troy, Gordion, and Çatalhöyük).
335 Study of monumental buildings was the norm, particularly until the 1970s (Killebrew &
Lehmann 1999:4). This trend gave way to the study of residential buildings in the 1980s.
336 This is also the period when more information on conservation begins to be presented in
the ERM proceedings, sometimes with dedicated sections or even separate articles on
architectural conservation interventions, as well as site presentation activities.
326
Tab
le 4
.6 C
onse
rvat
ion p
ract
ices
in
19
79
-201
4.
Fo
r th
e purp
ose
s of
this
tab
le,
site
pre
sen
tati
on
en
com
pas
ses
site
-sca
le w
ork
rat
her
th
an a
rch
itec
tura
l p
roje
cts
and
mai
nly
den
ote
s w
ork
alo
ng
vis
ito
r ro
ute
s,
vis
ito
r sa
fety
and s
ite
secu
rity
mea
sure
s, p
rep
arat
ion
and
in
stal
lati
on
of
info
rmat
ion
pan
els,
des
ign
of
vis
ito
r ro
ute
s, a
nd
con
stru
ctio
n o
f si
te m
use
um
s/v
isit
or
centr
es, as
wel
l as
mai
nte
nan
ce o
f th
e sa
id r
ou
tes,
pan
els
and
fac
ilit
ies.
Com
mu
nit
y e
ng
agem
ent
refe
rs o
nly
to
pro
ject
s in
itia
ted
by
th
e ar
chae
olo
gic
al t
eam
s
to e
ngag
e lo
cal
peo
ple
wit
h a
rch
aeo
log
ical
sit
es a
nd
tho
se t
hat
fo
cus
on
co
nfi
den
ce b
uil
din
g a
nd
lo
cal
emp
ow
erm
ent.
Fo
r o
ther
fo
rms
of
eng
agem
ent
see
Chap
ter
4.1
.3. T
his
char
t is
only
gen
eral
ly r
epre
sen
tati
ve
of
the
info
rmat
ion
acc
esse
d a
s p
art
of
this
res
earc
h a
nd
on
its
in
terp
reta
tion
by
th
e au
tho
r.
327
An example of the former is the first site-scale conservation work at
Aphrodisias, where a new programme is launched to conserve all wall surfaces
with lime mortar. Similarly, there is a change of course at Ephesos. Here the
director talks of slowing down excavations of new trenches to focus on artefact
and building conservation following years of unearthing of architectural
remains. At Troy and Gordion, in the absence of relevant specialists in their
own teams, external advice is sought. At Troy, the director calls on the services
of a series of conservation experts from Germany and elsewhere to advise on
holistic site conservation principles and priority action areas, while at Gordion,
following the advice of Bernard Feilden’s colleague Archie Walls, earthen
buttresses are built to support exposed buildings. At Yumuktepe, excavations
start with the intention of creating an archaeological park, for which
preliminary designs are soon finalised.
The second reason for the rise of conservation activities from the early 1990s
is associated with MoCT’s growing interest in archaeological sites and their
conservation and valorisation (see Chapter 2) and also evidenced by requests337
made to the excavation directors. Klaus Nohlen, the architect at Pergamon, for
example, explains that the underlying factor that led to the partial re-erection
of the Temple of Trajan was the Turkish authorities’ interest in site visibility,
specifically for the purposes of tourism, which had been on the rise in the post-
337 MoCT can make requests and invite teams to focus their attention on the upkeep of
monuments and take measures for site presentation and site security. These have either been
comprehensive, i.e. intended for all sites, or more site-specific. The former is not limited to
particular conservation interventions. For example, in 1992, it asked excavation directors to
carry out regional surveys in order to expand Turkey’s cultural inventory (Smith 1995:191).
Other than conservation-related work, MoCT makes site-specific requests, such as excavations
of particular areas, survey and documentation of buildings (Le Roy 1990:178) and construction
of storage facilities (Borchardt 1994:258). Requests can also include assistance during
conservation area zoning as was the case for Xanthos team in 1989 (Le Roy 1991:75). Local
authorities are also known to make requests, such as for the preparation of information panels
(Radt 1987).
328
World War II era, and that following this trend, in the early 1960s338, expressed
as “a wish for the presentation of the site to be enhanced” (1999:92). The
excavation team’s decision to choose the Trajaneum in response to this request
was made because of the quantity of existing original materials (Schmidt
1993:173; Nohlen 2014b:518–519). Similarly, MoCT made requests for the
conservation and security of Ephesos’ theatre and stadium (Karwiese 1996),
as well as the Yedi Uyurlar (Karwiese 1998:725)339.
In the early 2000s, architectural conservation activities continued to dominate
conservation practices but one of the significant developments was the
preparation of management plans for Ephesos, Hierapolis and Çatalhöyük. In
particular, the latter contributed significantly to the debates concerning values-
based approaches and collaborative efforts in providing conservation of
archaeological sites. Also noteworthy at this time is the introduction of newer
documentation and information management technologies, such as 3D-surveys
and GIS, which enabled various teams to document previously unsurveyed
buildings or to re-survey areas and entire sites to achieve more accurate results
or create enhanced data storage systems, as seen at Labraunda, Göbekli Tepe
and Pergamon.
The mid-2000s show a noticeable increase in the number of site presentation,
management planning and community engagement projects. Similar to the
1990s, this change can be read in the context of MoCT’s emphasis on site
conservation and presentation, supported by various regulatory documents
issued from the mid-2000s that put conservation squarely within the
excavation process and thereby making it a permit requirement (see Chapter
2). MoCT continued to make comprehensive and site-specific requests in this
338 Tourism as an economic driver of development had been recognized especially from the
mid-century onwards and was gradually integrated into the legislative system pertaining to
heritage conservation (see Chapter 2).
339 As observed here, several directors make it a point to specifically mention that these projects
were requested by MoCT.
329
period, particularly encouraging projects to enhance site presentation and use.
A significant example was MoCT’s request in 2006 for the conservation of
theatres at all sites with on-going excavations. In a letter sent to all excavation
directors MoCT asked them to take theatres “as top priority for excavation,
conservation, and reconstruction” (Greenewalt Jr. 2008:373). Some tackled
theatres, and either went ahead with substantial interventions to enable their
re-use, while some advised against it, mainly due to poor preservation of
original materials or lack of proper visitor access to the monuments340.
The most remarkable change, in terms of the number and scope of conservation
activities, is observed in the early 2010s. Efforts for site conservation and
presentation are seen at almost all of the examined sites, while the increase in
community engagement projects and management planning are also
noteworthy. References to and interventions regarding site presentation in
particular show a significant increase in the first half of the 2010s, especially
concentrating on visitor paths, creating visitor routes and ensuring site security.
In terms of architectural conservation projects, there is a gradual move towards
consolidation and conservation rather than statement anastylosis projects, as
for example at Aphrodisias, coupled with re-conservation projects, such as at
Ephesos, and an interest in maintenance, as well as use of local materials.
MoCT’s new regulations called for increased conservation measures,
particularly through a modification in 2012 that stipulated that no new trenches
could be opened at continuing excavations until restoration, conservation and
landscape design projects were completed. This emphasis on conservation is
reflected in the ERM presentations, as is demonstrated here by Gordion’s
director, Brian Rose (2015:491):
340 Other than Greenewalt’s assessment of the theatre at Sardis, the director of Xanthos, J. de
Courtils, upon receiving a request to restore the theatre, stated that owing to substantial
damages sustained in earthquakes and re-use of building materials, restoration of the theatre
would be unfeasible (2003:245).
330
MoCT asked directors of archaeological projects to focus the majority
of their energies on archaeological conservation and site improvement.
All Mediterranean countries move forward in this direction, and we
wholeheartedly adopted this request this summer.
The scope of archaeological projects in Turkey widened considerably during
this period to encompass conservation as a legitimate concern, in contrast to
the previously more common ‘compartmentalized approach’ or total ignoring
of ‘conservation responsibility’ (Riorden 2014:429). What should be
emphasized here is that from the 1990s onwards, the focus on single buildings
has been supplemented by a site-scale conservation concern and holistic
interpretation of sites –especially pertinent to archaeological park approach
and the gesammtkonzept. The emergence of a values-based conservation
approach in the early 2000s, practiced through management planning, which
was essentially introduced by the Çatalhöyük project has not translated into an
identifiable shift in conservation practices at the other examined sites,
remaining fairly marginal until recent years. The current surge in management
plans, however, can mainly be associated with WHS nominations due to this
conservation tool being a requirement. The actual grounds for management
planning, which accentuates a values-based approach, does not appear to have
seen a widespread reflection.
4.1.5.2 Responsibility for conservation
The most recent MoCT directives have increased excavation directors’
responsibilities, especially foreign directors’, by including land expropriation
costs, fees of MoCT representative, site security and conservation, which may
involve architectural interventions, site presentation and management planning
etc (see Chapter 2). In effect, MoCT wishes to share the responsibility of
looking after archaeological sites with excavation directors and their affiliated
institutions (Süslü 2012:viii). These changes lead to one of the underlying
questions that emerges from this research as to whose responsibility it is to
preserve an archaeological site? This is a question closely related to the
331
integration of conservation and archaeology, as well as the scope of
archaeological projects.
Responsibility has been debated since the first discussions on the
standardization of archaeological excavation. As early as 1940, the Manual on
the Technique of Archaeological Excavations considered “the question …. as
to how far the excavator is responsible for preserving the pieces and how far
the country giving the permit is responsible” (International Museums Office
1940:133). The Manual stated that the majority of the responsibility should be
placed in the hands of the country where the excavation is taking place, given
the little financial resources with which the foreign teams operated at this time,
and the fact that they uncover “a cultural treasure which the country itself has
every interest in conserving, especially as it will derive tangible profits
therefrom, if only from the touristic point of view” (International Museums
Office 1940:133). However, in some countries conservation responsibility was
shared between the country and those who carried out archaeological work.
Countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Italy, USA retained the right to cancel
permits “due to defective or insufficient work”, while in India and Italy this
stretched to failure to ensure preservation during field work (International
Museums Office 1940:138). Egypt, India, Greece, Iraq, Mexico, Palestine,
Syria and Lebanon were countries where it was obligatory for the excavator to
take the necessary precautions to protect excavated objects against climatic
damage and theft (International Museums Office 1940:139). In Greece, the
excavator was liable to pay for the costs of site preservation, while in Italy this
was shared with the regulating authority (International Museums Office
1940:139). India required a deposit for “compensation for objects lost or
destroyed during the period of the permit, or as a fine for infringing the rules
332
laid down for the conduct of work” (International Museums Office
1940:138)341.
The 1956, the UNESCO Recommendations on International Principles
Applicable to Archaeological Excavations aimed to set common principles for
excavations, as well as the governance of archaeological heritage and public
education. The bulk of the document concerns international collaboration, and
more specifically the reciprocal rights and responsibilities of foreign
researchers and States, similar to the 1937 Cairo Act. The Recommendations
make “guarding, maintenance and restoration of the site together with the
conservation, during and on completion of his work, of objects and monuments
uncovered” part of the “obligations of the excavator”, to be defined as part of
the archaeological permit (Article 21)342. As presented in Chapter 2, Turkish
regulations largely follow these recommendations, and in fact precede them.
The more recent legislative changes demonstrate that MoCT’s approach
towards archaeology and conservation revolves around sharing its
responsibilities further. These may be linked “to a neoliberal political leaning
that seeks to relieve the State from some of its obligations by devolving them
to the market (private sector) or to communities, volunteers, and third sector
organizations” (Orbaşlı 2016:184). Stanley-Price, on the other hand, interprets
this general shift, which he remarks is the result of the increased number of
341 More recent examples include Israel, where authorities hold the permit holder responsible
for site conservation and fencing (i.e. security), and where this is not carried out, the permit
holder is obliged to pay the necessary expenses to the authorities, while in Jordan, they are
required to submit a proportion of their project budgets to the relevant authority to be used for
site conservation work (ed. Stanley Price 1995:139). Also, in Libya, Italian archaeologists
were asked to carry out anastylosis projects in the 1970s (Guermandi 2012:312).
342 Discussions preceding the 1956 UNESCO Recommendations placed more responsibility
on the ‘excavator’ than the final agreed document –see UNESCO (1955:18). Similarly, the
draft of the UNESCO Recommendations stated the following in article 19: “The contract
governing the concession should deal fully with the obligations of the excavator on the
completion of his work, requiring him to restore the site to a condition satisfactory to both
parties concerned or, if the nature of the finds permits it, to arrange for their preservation in
the open air. The decision on this point should be taken after agreement between the parties
concerned.” UNESCO (1955:4). The final article is a watered-down version.
333
archaeological excavations and associated costs, as “tantamount to reverting to
the principles advocated in the 1956 recommendation” (2003:272). As
Palumbo (2002:8) notes, however, “archaeologists do not always believe that
it is their ethical responsibility to ensure the survival of the site they
investigate”.
Various foreign directors’ remarks on how they interpreted their
responsibilities towards the site and the State may be useful in this context.
Some refer to conservation work they carried out using phrases such as duty
towards the locals, professional and ethical responsibility, and reciprocation of
courtesy. As early as the mid-1980s, Didyma’s director K. Tuchelt emphasized
as part of their gesammtkonzept that their duty is not only to excavate but also
to preserve the rural character of the place that is familiar to the locals
(1988:78). He stated that one owes the conservation of the landscape to not
only to the ‘fleeting visit of a tourist’ but to the locals (1993:77). Similarly,
Manfred Korfmann, in his very first ERM report on Troy, emphasized that site
conservation and presentation were their duty (Korfmann 1990:290).
Torun&Ercan explain that M. Waelkens, the former director of Sagalassos,
took conservation as an ‘ethical responsibility’ in line with related international
principles (2013:27), while K. Nohlen noted that site presentation work at
Pergamon was carried out in response to Turkey’s request as “a sign of
gratitude to the country for the research opportunities it had long provided”
(Nohlen 1999:92, 2014b:520).
Teams also view their site conservation and presentation projects as
‘investments’ or ‘signs of commitment’. Karlsson (2010a:361), the former
director of Labraunda, viewed their conservation efforts as “… some very
expensive projects … which should be seen as investments for the future”,
while Riorden (2014:434), a previous member of the Troy team, considered
the construction of a Bauhof (workshop) at Troy, built due to the growing scale
conservation work, an act of commitment to conservation.
334
F. Pirson emphasizes DAI’s ‘responsibility’ in reciprocating Turkey’s
‘courtesy’ that enables their work, and states that “preservation and
presentation of sites” should be part of this responsibility, especially for long-
term projects (2009b:92–93):
The opportunity to work at very prominent archaeological sites in Turkey
is a great courtesy of the Turkish Republic and also a sign of firm trust in
German archaeology and the Institute. Such trust implies responsibilities
for the Institute, not only in terms high-standard research and publication,
but also in the preservation and presentation of the sites. Therefore, large
scale conservation projects and the development management plans have
to be an integral part at least of the long-term projects.
This responsibility, however, says Pirson, should be jointly assumed by foreign
teams and Turkey. DAI has taken steps to become more involved in
management planning processes at the sites it is researching (Göçmen & Tezer
2014:385). In the preliminary management plan prepared for Göbekli Tepe,
this joint responsibility is emphasized (Schmidt & Merbach 2014:86):
…it is imperative to create an organisational basis to safeguard the
long-term running of the site for the public in a way that guarantees the
survival of the monument and its setting. However, willing the German
Archaeological Institute may be to contribute to this goal, in the long
run this is clearly a task that can only be taken on by the institutions of
Turkey.
These remarks refer primarily to conservation of physical remains, but this
could also be widened to include responsibilities towards local communities.
One of the directors interviewed for this research stated that their way of giving
back to the community and transferring the knowledge accumulated during the
excavations was through educating local children, which they considered an
obligation.
335
Radt, on the other hand, highlights the one-sidedness of this expectation and
argued that organisations or private enterprises obtaining financial gain from
archaeological sites do not contribute to the conservation and maintenance of
the site while excavation teams are obliged to do so (2006c:61):
It is not possible, that the burden of all the above-mentioned and many
other problems is carried by only one of the existing institutions, be it
financially, be it administratively. But until now the distribution of
responsibility is unclear: the local museum collects the entrance fees
but has never enough money for cleaning, repairs, guardians etc. The
local municipality collects the parking fees but does not spend enough
of the money for the maintenance of the ancient site. The sellers of
souvenirs, refreshments etc. earn a lot of money from the tourists but
give nothing for the maintenance of the site. The excavation team is
held responsible for the repair, maintenance and cleaning of ruins,
sometimes at areas where they never have worked or where work was
completed a long time ago. This is the case in spite they are doing
already a lot of repair and restoration in the areas where they are
actually working.
This not only demonstrates the heavy responsibility of archaeologists but also
the lack of collaboration shown by those who benefit from these sites. The
findings presented earlier in this chapter corroborate specifically the lack of
local financial support to conservation at the selected sites.
4.1.5.3 Visibility of conservation
Communication of conservation work has not been a usual practice in
archaeological research and lack of publications on conservation of
archaeological sites has been a problem for many years (Caldararo 1987:86;
Stanley-Price 2003:277). In Turkey, conservation did not feature high on the
agenda of the ERMs until the 1990s. Publications of excavation teams that
focus on conservation and presentation mostly centre on single buildings, such
336
as the theatre Priene (Schumacher, Misiakiewicz & Koenigs 2007), the shelter
covering the Terrace House 2 at Ephesus (Krinzinger 2000b), and the
reconstruction of the city walls of Hattusha (Seeher 2007a) –mostly published
in multiple languages including Turkish (except the book on Priene’s theatre
restoration). There are exceptions such as the booklet marking the 50th
anniversary of Italian excavation and conservation efforts at Hierapolis
(MAIER 2007) or publications on the Italian contribution to Turkish
archaeology and conservation where directors discuss their projects343 (ed.
Başgelen 2013).
Publications of a more holistic nature, those that assess previous works at the
site and explain conservation philosophies behind past and future conservation
work, are more limited and relatively recent, such as Troy (Riorden 2014);
Gordion (eds. Keller & Matero 2011; Matero 2012); Hattusha (Seeher &
Schachner 2014); Sagalassos (Torun & Ercan 2013; Torun & Ceylan 2013);
Ephesos (Ladstaetter 2016); Pergamon (Nohlen 2014a), Sardis (Severson
2008), Elaiussa Sebaste (Romeo 2008a). These publications are mostly written
in English, with the exception of Ephesos, and only a small number have
Turkish versions or summaries.
Another emergence in this past decade has been the joint presentations and
publications of archaeologists and conservation experts. Pirson and
Bachmann’s joint appearance in the ERMs are exemplary and demonstrates
the significance attached to conservation at Pergamon, and the mutually
beneficial co-existence of the fields of archaeology and conservation.
In spite of this visibility, however, there are certain topics that are noticeable
by their absence in the ERMs. The most significant omission concerns WHS
nominations and related management planning processes. Examples include
343 There is a tradition among Italian directors to gather annually in Turkey to present their
excavation and conservation work separately –see also ed. Tangianu (2005); ed. Başgelen
(2012).
337
Aphrodisias, Çatalhöyük, Ephesus and Pergamon, where there are no
references, even though the teams were fully or partially involved. The other
omission involves projects related to community engagement. The long-
standing community education activities and other training opportunities at
Kaman-Kalehöyük are not mentioned in the ERM reports. Several noteworthy
projects carried out at Sagalassos, and their more recent move towards a
heritage management methodology, appear in the Archaeometry Meeting
proceedings (Excavations, Research and Archaeometry Symposium) rather
than the ERM proceedings344 (see Torun et al. 2014). Another example
concerns the ERM reports of Elaiussa Sebaste that provide information mostly
on architectural conservation work, focusing on the theatre, agora and basilica,
and various other architectural remains, while research on the wider
perspective of preserving the site in its current context appear in other
publications, most notably in ed. Romeo 2008.
The funding sources for conservation are not especially presented in the ERM
proceedings. Also, the costs of most projects are not published and MoCT was
not forthcoming in providing any information in this regard. The financial
aspects of conservation, therefore, are not transparent.
Reflecting MoCTs concerns, references to site security, including perimeter
fences, gates, site guards etc., do become more noticeable in the ERM
proceedings in the 2010s, indicating a selective approach towards the
representation of conservation efforts.
4.1.5.4 Engagement with local communities
Inclusiveness and community-based conservation are increasingly being
recognized as intrinsic to archaeology and heritage conservation and there are
344 The Archaeometry Meetings, rather than the ERM, may be the outlet for such topics
because other papers on site management plans appear in the proceedings, such as Metropolis
in the 29th Archaeometry Meeting (p.121-127) and Güvercinkayası in the 30th Archaeometry
Meeting (p.1-16).
338
codes of practice promulgating this interaction (Chowne, Kotsakis & Orbaşlı
2007:18; van den Dries 2015:45). The professional environment has changed
dramatically since the 1990s and various ethical codes have been introduced
that encourage community engagement to create a more permeable
environment for enhanced collaboration345. Encouraging local involvement in
the conservation and monitoring of archaeological sites also has the potential
to foster a greater sense of ownership and a will to protect archaeological sites
(Atalay et al. 2010:12; Öztürk 2014:238).
As demonstrated previously, there are increasing efforts to try to engage other
social groups (not only male villagers who work at the excavations) with
archaeological and conservation activities, and promote interest in the process.
This is more commonly accomplished through public meetings but there is a
discernible move towards confidence building, empowerment and regional
development as part of a heritage management approach. One of the issues that
emerges, however, is the lack of such proactive projects across the wider
selection of sites investigated.
In the 1970s and 1980s, archaeological projects did not have public outreach
agenda, and there was a singular lack of interest or desire in engaging with
communities beyond what was necessary. Therefore, the lack of proactive
engagements of foreign teams working in Turkey during that period is not
unusual346. In the case of foreign teams, this lack of interest may have derived
from the earlier history of explorations which appear to have continued to
345 This is fast becoming one of the more important topics in archaeology and heritage
conservation with this new trend’s increased visibility in scientific gatherings such as the
European Association of Archaeologists’ annual symposium in Istanbul in 2014, which had
an overwhelming focus on community engagement/public archaeology, and the growing
presence of such projects also in Turkish-run archaeological projects presented in the ERMs
since the late 2000s and early 2010s.
346 For example, the director of Ephesos wrote that the protection of an ancient monument
starts with removing the human element (Karwiese 1998:725). Although stated in the context
of persistent tourist vandalism, this understanding may characterise some of these earlier
approaches.
339
shape approaches towards local communities347. During the interviews, a
number of directors remarked on how colonialist sentiments may have
persisted for many decades in the 20th century –demonstrated especially in the
isolation of archaeological teams from local communities and a perceivable
lack of communication beyond the employer-employee status.
This isolation is quite pertinent from a spatial point of view, in the
architecturally and socially segregated positions of purpose-built excavation
houses –resulting in a “duality” within settlements (Çelik 2016:175). While
this may have as much to do with security and safety concerns (of stored
ancient artefacts) and requirements to provide a proper work environment, it
clearly discourages interaction. Excavation complexes of longer-running
projects, such as Didyma (known locally as the Alman Kule), Gordion,
Pergamon, and Sardis are a few examples of such separated arrangements
(Figure 4.21). Marciniak’s (2015:50) reference to “ivory towers” regarding
Central-European archaeologists who were “satisfied from their academically
sanctioned positions and exempt from any kind of public engagement”, calls
to mind not only this segregation but lack of communication348 –it should be
noted, however, that this is not peculiar to foreign-run projects in Turkey349.
347 Starzmann (2012a), for example, who studied foreign archaeologists working in the Middle
East, argues that colonialist ideas prevail in archaeological practice, particularly in terms of
labour politics.
348 Community engagement was examined by Dissard, Rosenzweig & Matney (2011) with
regards to a foreign archaeological team’s relationship with the villagers in south-east Turkey,
and how certain factors such as social customs and physical barriers can aggravate situations.
349 Archaeological teams are usually considered to be ‘foreigners’ by locals, regardless of
whether the team is predominantly Turkish or not. If the majority of the team consists of
foreign nationals, however, additional barriers may be introduced, such as language,
knowledge of local social customs and traditions.
340
Figure 4.21 Gordion’s dig house between the tumulus and the village (the author 2015)
Another factor that may account for the small number of projects and activities
that directly focus on engaging communities may relate to possible
apprehensions regarding social customs and traditions, as well as concerns
regarding unsettling existing relationships with locals. Unlike most projects
elsewhere in Europe, archaeological projects in Turkey tend to be long-term,
sometimes lasting for decades. They not only depend on continuous academic
and financial commitment but also rely on good relationships with
communities. Introducing newer forms of engagement, particularly at such
established excavations, may be considered to have the potential of
endangering such relationships by embarking on something different which
may be misinterpreted. This appears to be especially pertinent in rural
communities with a conservative leaning, where, for example, economically
self-sufficient women may be frowned upon. Speaking of the cleaning project
at the Temple of Artemis as Sardis, which is being implemented with the help
of local women, the director N. Cahill’s comments (pers. comm. 2015) reflect
a similar concern:
Because we are foreigners, we don’t want to cause problems. We are
careful with what we are doing and not to breach any social rules.
The lack of community-focused projects at Central-European-run excavations
that was noted earlier in this chapter begs the question whether conservation
practices are shaped by national professional organisations that represent
archaeologists in their countries of origin, as well as their archaeological
institutes abroad. A concise idea of the various ethical codes and approaches
341
is set out below for the American, British, German, Italian and Japanese
institutions and organisations.
The most detailed set of principles come from American institutions350.
Although ARIT, as an organisation, does not have any specific codes of
conduct, the ethical codes of The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)
and The Society of American Archaeologists (SAA) directly focus on
archaeologists’ relations with the public and local communities. One of the
principles of AIA’s “Code of Professional Ethics” is “Responsibilities to the
Public” where it states that archaeologists, among other issues raised, “should
actively engage in public outreach through lecturing, popular writing, school
programs, and other educational initiatives” and “should respect the cultural
norms and dignity of local inhabitants in areas where archaeological research
is carried out.” (Archaeological Institute of America 1994). It is important here
to emphasize that communicating archaeological work to communities is
considered as a ‘responsibility’. Some of the “The Principles of Archaeological
Ethics” of SAA are directly relevant to conservation and communities (Society
of American Archaeology 1996; Lynott 1997). The principle relating to
‘stewardship’ states that archaeologists “should use the specialized knowledge
they gain to promote public understanding and support for its [architectural
record’s] long-term preservation” while another on ‘public education and
outreach’ calls for archaeologists to work with the public for the stewardship
of archaeological sites and “communicate archaeological interpretations of the
past”. American archaeologists are not bound by these principles but they exist
as guidelines for their practice.
As the leading organisation for archaeologists practising in Europe, the
European Association of Archaeologists’ (EAA) Code of Practice, adopted in
1997 and amended in 2009, in its first section entitled “Archaeologists and
350 For further information on the development and changes of these ethical principles see
Lynott (1997) eds. Lynott & Wylie (2000).
342
Society”, calls for the “preservation of the archaeological heritage by every
legal means” and for archaeologists to “inform the general public at all levels
of the objectives and methods of archaeology in general and of individual
projects in particular, using all the communication techniques at their
disposal.” (European Association of Archaeologists 1997).
BIAA has recently been focusing on heritage management, public involvement
and public perceptions of the past, and its own projects reflect this approach351.
Although it does not have a separate code of practice for archaeologists
working in Turkey, the Charter and by-law, Code of Conduct and standards of
the main professional organisation that represents archaeologists working in
the UK, the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) give an indication.
The fourth principle of the Code of Conduct relates to sharing information and
states that “a member shall accept the responsibility of informing the public of
the purpose and results of his/her work and shall accede to reasonable requests
for … information for dispersal to the general public” (Chartered Institute for
Archaeologists 2014a:7). CIfA has a specific and detailed Standard for those
working in historic environments (Standard and guidance for stewardship for
the historic environment) where it discusses the role of stewardship as
“undertaking conservation management tasks, communicating the public value
of the heritage, promoting community awareness of the historic environment
and encouraging active engagement in protection and enhancement”
(Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014b:3). In a separate section entitled
“Communication”, the document calls for engaging with the public to “ensure
there is an informed public, to understand public perceptions of the historic
environment, and to sustain the public interest that justifies its protection”
(Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014b:20).
351 Particularly the Pisidia Cultural Heritage Management Project, Aspendos Cultural Heritage
Management Project, Living Amid the Ruins: Archaeological Sites as Hubs of Sustainable
Development for Local Communities.
343
DAI has also been emphasizing cultural heritage conservation recently (Pirson
2015:45). This is also observed in DAI’s renewed website in early 2016 which
showcased ‘cultural preservation’ as the organisation’s new focus.
“Awareness-raising” and “builders’ training and education” are highlighted as
its tasks (see Kulturerhalt im Focus https://www.dainst.org/373). Remarking
that archaeological site conservation cannot be the responsibility of only
governmental authorities, it is noted
(https://www.dainst.org/forschung/kulturerhalt/aufgaben):
The initiative for these tasks must arise from the will of the public. The
key to forming such a public will consists in educating the public about
the existence and character of their archaeological cultural heritage and
create an understanding of the relevance this heritage has for our
present society.
The organisation also states that it sees archaeology as an “instrument for
cooperation on development” and gives examples of its work in other foreign
countries where it contributed towards job creation, training of craftsmen, and
enhancing archaeological sites to make them publicly accessible (DAI 2016).
In the mission statement of OeAI, under “Publicity and Society”, it is stated
that (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut n.d.):
Active communication of the scientific results and findings, not only
within professional circles but also to a broader public, is the
contribution of the OeAI towards the visualization of scientific research
and towards the development of a knowledge-based society.
The Italian missions’ website (Italian archaeological, anthropological and
ethnological missions abroad) in describing their projects states (Missioni
Archaeologiche n.d.):
These missions are not just a highly significant scientific and scholarly
activity. They are also a precious instrument in the training of local
344
workers and the transfer of technologies in a series of sectors such as
archaeology, restoration and historic conservation in which Italy’s
level of excellence is internationally acknowledged.
JIAA describes its major goals as “preserving this material and educating
future generations about cultural heritage preservation” (JIAA n.d.). This view
is reflected in the way they envisage JIAA to be as a place, with a particular
focus on children (JIAA n.d.):
a center of cultural and academic exchange, to share the results of our
research both locally and internationally, to train young researchers,
and especially to stimulate local children, to instil in them an interest
and passion in history and cultural heritage.
The Anglo-American codes view the relationship between archaeology and
communities as more along the lines of awareness-raising, informing and
engaging communities through various means, whereas German and Italian
approaches appear to be more focused on craftsmen training. The latter group
cannot be said to involve in any other form of engagement that would
encourage locals to participate in the archaeological process or heritage
conservation. Italian-run projects also emphasize the sharing and
disseminating of technological knowledge which does not explicitly seem to
aim at local communities. DAI’s new focus recognizes the importance of
making cultural heritage matter; however, the words ‘educating the public’
appears to transmit a didactic and top-down understanding. OeAI does not
specifically refer to a methodology of how this ‘active communication’ is
going to take place. In terms of JIAA, on the other hand, engaging communities
with archaeology and training researchers are at the heart of their work and the
reason behind the decision to build the institute’s premises in Kaman-
Kalehöyük. JIAA’s position represents an approach that extends beyond the
physical boundaries of the archaeological site and integrates social
development into archaeological work. At another level, the markedly inter-
345
disciplinary character of Belgian archaeological practice since the 1980s and
its increased focus on community engagement since the 1990s –as is observed
in Belgian projects elsewhere around the world (Plets, Plets & Annaert
2012:79–80)– are clearly reflected in the projects at Sagalassos. This brief
overview, therefore, indicates that the various archaeological traditions
(Anglo-American, Central-European, etc.) reflect themselves in their practice
in Turkey.
In the case of German-led projects, there appears less interest, for example, in
public meetings: only in two of the selected sites, and relatively recently, have
there been such initiatives. Schachner (pers. comm. 2015), states that
community engagement work is mostly an American approach, and notes that
he does not consider them necessary and questions their benefits. He says as
an understanding of archaeological sites and heritage should be formed at
school, but even then, he notes, there can be illicit excavations.
It must be noted, however, that in various central European countries,
including Germany, educating the public at large is considered to be the duty
of the state, which largely explains the results of this research352. The reaction
of one of the workers at Hattusha upon seeing the completed city wall
reconstruction (Schachner pers. comm. 2015) was: “I never understood what
we had been doing here during 30 years’ of work, but I finally have”. As much
as it tells of the strong impact of reconstructions (and perhaps their possible
use as a form of engagement), this illuminating statement also attests to a lack
of communication between the archaeological team and the locals.
Against this background, a final point of discussion is the effectiveness of
community-focused activities carried out at these sites. Major questions are
whether they indeed result in positive outcomes or how they impact local
352 This is also emphasized by Starzmann (2012b:160) who states that only a small number of
German teams working in the Middle East have public education and outreach in their
programmes.
346
perceptions of archaeological sites and cultural heritage in general353 –for
which Çatalhöyük is a useful case study.
One of the many ways of engaging with the public and local communities is
by making research data accessible through dedicated websites. The
Çatalhöyük project has aspired to and achieved this on a grand scale –the
amount of information readily available has yet to be surpassed by any other
archaeological project in Turkey. Yet, in reference to community activities and
providing access to research data, Rico & Ashley, who worked at Çatalhöyük,
ask, “can open access and transparency of our work be labelled
‘multivocality’? … Are tours and educational programs that are defined by a
management plan sharing points? Are they dialectic or monologic?” They
propose creating “an intentional chance to collaborate” in site stewardship
(2007), which in many respects means making archaeology relevant to
communities. At Çatalhöyük, this was attempted by shaping the project’s
research design in collaboration with local communities while recognizing the
possible differences in perception between these communities (Atalay et al.
2010:13). Hodder argued that archaeologists have an ethical responsibility and
that “rather than imposing questions from outside, they also have a duty … to
engage in research that seeks compromise and bridges between a variety of
different interests.“ (Hodder 2002:175, 181).
However, these intentions have not been able to thwart criticisms. Bernbeck
(2012:95) stated that the project continued to be “an exclusive ‘gated
community’ of mainly British-centred excavation and research practices, with
little contact with local Turkish communities”, which he argued publications
were trying to hide, and it was “a globalized, locally disconnected project that
is tied into big business funding”. A recent study, investigating community
engagement projects at Çatalhöyük, may not only shed light on some of these
353 Perceptions of archaeological sites can differ from location to location and within the same
community as was demonstrated by Apaydin (2015).
347
issues but also demonstrate the importance of post-project impact assessments.
This study discovered that community activities prepared by the archaeological
team354, which aimed at awareness-raising and instilling a sense of protection
towards the site, had in fact not reached their goals. The primary reason,
Apaydın (2016:838–839) cites, is the top-down approach of education projects
and secondly:
…most projects have also neglected the social, political and economic
backgrounds of the local communities in their education programmes
and have also used similar methodologies for socially, ethnically,
politically and economically different communities.
This outcome is particularly noteworthy, considering the significant efforts of
a variety of teams who worked at Çatalhöyük to engage different communal
groups and children with the site and its conservation.
4.2 Issues impacting conservation practices
This section examines recent issues impacting conservation practices from the
late 2000s to early 2010s during which new and significant regulatory changes
were introduced. Its starting point is the interviews held with directors and
conservation professionals (respondents355) working at the selected sites356.
Subsequently, the ERM proceedings and various other publications were
consulted to expand on the issues raised, as well as to contextualize and
elaborate certain examples. The section concludes with a discussion centred
354 See also Pollock (2010:208), who argues that while these efforts may be “well-meaning”
they may be superficial nonetheless.
355 For the purpose of this section, the word ‘respondent’ refers to the representative(s) of each
of the 19 sites –either the excavation directors or conservation professionals. Therefore, the
percentages given in each sub-heading do not indicate the number of persons who responded
but rather the number of sites where the relevant issue was raised –a percentage based on 19
sites.
356 Recurrent or non-time-specific issues were also covered where relevant.
348
on two emerging themes: MoCT’s conservation approach, and attitudes
towards foreign archaeological presence.
The interviews revealed a very diverse range of responses that were collated
into the following categories:
• Operational and regulatory issues
• Financial issues
• Professional resources
• Local dimension
4.2.1 Operational and regulatory issues
Operational and regulatory issues are mainly related to the requirements and
policies of the regulating authority, MoCT. 15 (79%) respondents highlighted
certain aspects in terms of MoCT’s direct and indirect influence on
conservation processes, as well as the context within which conservation is
carried out (Figure 4.22).
Figure 4.22 Operational and regulatory issues
MoCT’s new circulars and regulations since the late 2000s have had a
considerable impact on archaeological excavation processes and conservation
practices alike (see Chapter 2). Issues relayed by some of the respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
349
focused on these and included, among others, consultation, institutional
cooperation, expectation of extended excavation seasons, assistant
directorships (originally introduced as co-directorships), and MoCT’s
repatriation efforts.
4.2.1.1 Consultation
Seven respondents (37%) voiced their concerns regarding the lack of
consultation particularly in relation to legislative changes, privatisations of
services, and planning processes. Respondents stated that they were either not
notified at all or informed too late by relevant authorities –MoCT or local
governments– even in cases when those decisions specifically involved
conservation of the sites they were working on.
One such example is MoCT’s directive of 2011, which, at the time of the first
interviews for this research, had recently introduced significant changes to
archaeological and conservation practices; however, some of the respondents
stated that they were neither informed of this directive before nor consulted in
the process357. Once it was made official, some of the directors said they
learned about it through their country’s Embassy while others said they were
informed by MoCT. The timing of the directive was another concern raised as
foreign nationals make their permit applications in December, much earlier
than their Turkish counterparts, which made it difficult for them to make the
necessary adjustments.
Another example, involving a cable-car at Pergamon, demonstrates lack of
consultation on the part of a local authority. Since the 1970s, ways have been
sought to transport greater numbers of tourists to the Acropolis. One idea was
via a funicular railway, later modified to a cable-car, and its implementation
was carried forward by the local municipality. Pirson (2011 pers. comm.)
357 Murat Süslü, the Director General of Cultural Assets and Museums, on the other hand,
refered to the participatory process in which this directive was prepared (Süslü 2012:vii), so
in view of the directors’ comments above, the inclusiveness of the process is open to debate.
350
explained how they found out about this project at a very late stage, and only
when the regional conservation council informed the local municipality that
the excavation team should be consulted. The cable-car was going to have a
significant visual and physical impact on the site, yet its planning, according
to the director, did not involve an integrated process, and no proper analysis of
the archaeological site and the cable-car route was carried out. “Although the
current cable-car track is not ideal”, said the director, “we managed to change
an earlier much worse track”. Because excavation teams tend to be the
‘visible/public face’ of an archaeological site rather than MoCT or the local
museum, this case also forewarns of a danger that locals may put the blame on
the excavation teams in cases of delays or other problems.
From the late 2000s, MoCT began to privatise services to archaeological sites.
This decision introduced a new set of actors or stakeholders into the equation.
The relationship between these actors, however, was not properly defined, and
excavation directors were left in the dark about the nature of private
involvement in the archaeological sites where they were working. This
indicates at a lack of proper consultation processes. While one of the
respondents referred to being consulted during the privatization of the site
entrances, another, the director of Hierapolis, Francesco D’Andria, said he was
not. This would appear to suggest that MoCT was employing different
approaches for seemingly similar issues. D’Andria was critical of the process
and said they had been similarly unaware of the obligations of the private
company that won the privatisation tender (pers. comm. 2011):
Recently, the entrance has been privatised. We were neither consulted
during this [privatisation] process nor about this company. We have no
idea what their obligations are. We, for example, are obliged to pay the
salary of the guard, the fencing etc., but do they have any
responsibilities towards the site?
351
D’Andria also voiced his concern regarding decisions taken without their
involvement and knowledge (pers. comm. 2011):
We were not consulted about the entrances that were built ten years
ago. Now we understand that they will be demolished because they are
not liked.
He also remarked on the lack of consultation during the tender process358 for
the anastylosis of the theatre, stating that their recommendations concerning
the time-frame of the project, and the conservation materials used, were not
taken into consideration.
Conservation planning processes were also mentioned in relation to lack of
participatory decision-making. The director of Hattusha, Schachner, stated that
they were not consulted during the preparation of a local conservation plan,
which was authored by an academic from Ankara. He said they should have
been part of the process because in his view the planning team may not know
“the sensitivities and characteristics of the site as we do” (pers. comm. 2015).
4.2.1.2 Emphasis on extensive architectural interventions
Seven respondents (37%) commented on the pressures they faced regarding
extensive architectural interventions. Issues raised ranged from the scope of
MoCT’s expectations in the name of conservation, which some perceived to
be mainly driven by tourism. The wider problems associated with the touristic
use of sites was also referred to in this context.
Conservation-related site-specific requests generally focused on buildings,
such as their anastylosis or reconstructions. Some of the respondents’
358 D’Andria (pers. comm. 2011) stated that, a company with no prior experience at
archaeological sites was awarded the contract at the theatre, and noted that selecting an
inexperienced company to do such a delicate job was like having a veterinary conduct a heart
surgery. Previously, Radt (2006c:62) suggested that contractors should be monitored by the
excavation team and that they should comply with their conservation principles.
352
comments respondents give clear indication that, although they, as directors or
conservation specialists, did not specifically wish to re-erect or construct
certain buildings, they were asked to do so by MoCT. In some cases,
respondents were able to persuade authorities to consolidate rather than go for
total reconstructions. For example, Pirson&Bachmann (pers. comm. 2011)
said:
DAI is supporting Turkish authorities (Izmir Rölöve ve Anıtlar
Müdürlüğü) in their project at the Red Hall. They initially intended to
reconstruct the windows on the upper parts of the walls, but the
excavation team gave their opinion, so it appears as if there will be
consolidation instead of completion.
At Hattusha, Schachner (pers. comm. 2015), referring to the city wall
reconstruction, explained how MoCT wished for the team to extend the
reconstruction even further, but that they felt this would not be ethically the
right thing to do. He also mentioned that they were asked to reconstruct a
temple, which they rejected due to lack of evidence on how a temple looked
three-dimensionally.
Another respondent explained the difficulty in getting across to MoCT why the
latter’s request for a particular anastylosis could not be fulfilled:
Most of the buildings here are not marble –just their façades were built
of marble… Only 10% of the original marbles [of the building] have
survived today, which is too few to do actual anastylosis as requested
by MoCT. It is delicate to make non-specialists understand that
although 90% of the building is preserved, the whole structure cannot
be reconstructed. Instead of an actual reconstruction, a model could be
installed on the site.
Another respondent commented on the difficulty of carrying out conservation
based on international principles because MoCT was asking for more robust
353
actions than what conventional consolidation and conservation actions would
require. Some considered this to be mainly motivated by tourism concerns
rather than those of conservation. Some of the respondents gave examples of
the negative impacts of tourism. Respondents expanded on the problems,
which ranged from mass tourism to dealing with vandalism and pressures from
the local authorities and tourism agencies.
A poignant point made by one of the directors was that tour operators were
putting a lot of pressure on them to reconstruct more architectural remains so
that they would appeal more to visitors359. While criticisms are usually directed
at MoCT regarding the increased number of reconstructions, this comment
demonstrates that the demand for reconstruction also comes directly from the
tourism industry itself. F. D’Andria (pers. comm. 2011) illustrated the power
of the tourism industry at Hierapolis:
The tourists come for the pool and then walk around in their bathing
suits and visit the museum dressed like that. I consider the museum a
shrine: like a mosque, a church. I had a signpost prepared, in order to
prevent tourists from walking around in their bathing suits, but this
caused a problem with the tour guides and the gendarme told me to
remove them.
He further elaborated on the situation and pressures of local authorities (pers.
comm. 2011):
The problem at Hierapolis is the fact that it is both an ancient site but
also a tourist venue. Our main problem is the tourists who come to
Hierapolis – their number amounting to 1.5 million in a year. There
might be 500.000 more next year. However, the Provincial Special
359 Similarly, Cevizoğlu, the assistant director of the Didyma excavations, refers to the way
certain circles wish to have the temple fully restored so as to attract more tourists, and expands
on the technical and scientific impossibility of achieving this (Cevizoğlu 2015:152).
354
Administration wants more tourists. Everything here is made for
tourists: for example, they call the thermal pool Kleopatra, but she
never visited the site.
Another issue raised was the use of certain parts of sites for cultural activities,
which is not at the discretion of directors, but they have to deal with the
aftermath of such events. Acts of vandalism, as well as accidental damages,
were mentioned:
There are problems related with touristic use of the site. For example,
the theatre was used for an event, and a tractor or another large vehicle
bringing in materials damaged an original block at the entrance of the
theatre… Also, visitors write on the stone surfaces and walls.
The building is sometimes used for concerts… Each year, we at first
look for tourist destructions, and then carry out consolidations.
Another problem mentioned, which is in fact a wide-spread issue continuously
brought up in the ERM reports, is tourist tendencies. A respondent mentioned
that greater numbers of tourists had led to damaged information panels, which
meant they needed to replace them more often than the otherwise durable
panels would normally have required. As sometimes they may not have
funding for such items, it may be the case that damaged panels remain in place
for more than one season.
4.2.1.3 Institutional cooperation
Six respondents (32%) referred to issues relating to lack of collaboration and
disaccord between different authorities in charge of conservation and
subsequent negative impacts. Their comments demonstrate the variety of
problems encountered:
There are many interest groups (here) and they all have different ideas
about the management of (this site) and its future.
355
We believe that the site requires a holistic preservation approach but
there are different institutions that have responsibility for the site, such
as Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of Culture and
Tourism –all with different opinions about the site.
The biggest problem for conservation is the lack of an integrative
concept between the local authority, museum, the excavation team, and
other local interests.
Some of the respondents referred to cases where different agencies within
MoCT, such as Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü (KVMGM) and
regional conservation councils, make totally opposing decisions, in particular
when the KVMGM asks a team to carry out a conservation-related project,
which the regional conservation council does not allow.
Another issue that was highlighted concerned interventions of different
organizations on the same site for restoration purposes. The director of
Hierapolis (pers. comm. 2011), referring to the work of the local museum
stated:
There are different restoration approaches by different institutions.
Restorations carried out by the local museum in the necropolis area
concentrate on re-erection of monuments, while we, on the other hand,
have preserved in situ an entire wall that fell due to an earthquake. We
think traces of earthquakes should be preserved as part of the history of
the site.
In his criticism of the local museum carrying out ‘extensive restorations’ at the
necropolis, D’Andria refutes its justification in the name tourism, stating that
“the result is the destruction of certain contexts in (a) way that is incompatible
with quality tourism and the protection of the area’s authenticity” (D'Andria
2006b:119).
356
Management planning and WHS nomination processes are also known to have
been negatively affected by lack of cooperation. The preparation of
Pergamon’s WHS management plan, which was initiated by the local
municipality in line with the regulation, initially did not include the
archaeological team even though they were the primary source of information
about the ancient site, having worked there intermittently for over a century. It
was only later in the process that the municipality created a collaborative
process –as was called for in the legislation. Subsequently, the WHS
application was prepared in a more cooperative sense (Pirson&Bachmann pers.
comm. 2011). Another respondent referred to a similar situation, where again
the municipality was unwilling to include them in the process, which was part
of a WHS nomination, in spite of MoCT’s wishes in that regard. The problem
was resolved in later stages.
Conflicting decisions of other state agencies were also mentioned to exemplify
lack of cooperation among organizations. Although not the primary line of
discussion during the interviews, some of the respondents cited other issues
such as building, mining and damaging land use activities resulting from such
decisions, to which they also refer in some of their publications and ERM
reports. F. Pirson and M. Bachmann, for example, commented on new building
activities in Pergamon (pers. comm. 2011): “They pose a problem and threaten
not only known places but also the necropolis. By doing that, the ‘spatial
integrity’ of the site is being destroyed”.
Elaiussa Sebaste faces similar problems. The excavation director, E. Equini
Schneider, refers to new buildings and agricultural use of the site state stating
that they “constitute the major problem for the knowledge and the conservation
of the ancient artifacts” (Equini Schneider 1998:392). The site is also
inundated by locals and tourists using the site as a backdrop for their seaside
holidays with exposed buildings used as parking lots and camping etc. Kyme
is one of most affected sites as it is encroached by modern port development.
The ancient remains are swamped and barely visible among the industrial
357
plants, piers, wind mills and walls of trucks criss-crossing the hinterland of the
bay. A. La Marca, the director, refers to these issues in his ERM reports,
highlighting the continuous industrial expansion in the area since the 1970s
and its impact on the site, albeit noting the irony, because the reason that had
created Kyme (its strategic location as a port) was causing its downfall (La
Marca 2015:119).
The director of Göbekli Tepe, K. Schmidt, mentions that a company had started
coring into the limestone plateau of the ancient site, the hardest in the region,
to use the stone in the construction of a highway. This they were able to halt
(Schmidt 2010a:241). C. Greenewalt Jr., the former director of Sardis,
expressed his concern regarding mining activity in the necropolis, which had
irreversibly altered the landscape (Greenewalt Jr. 2002:230). The situation
appears not to have changed, as Cahill, the current director, called the nearby
quarry “the worst thing that is happening to Sardis right now” (pers. comm.
2015).
4.2.1.4 Duration of excavations
One of the issues that MoCT has been focusing on in the past decade involves
duration of excavations. In its August 2005 directive360 it introduced an
approximately three-month period and later, in its circular of June 2009, called
for longer excavation periods of four months, inclusive of any work related
with conservation, landscaping, publication etc. besides excavation361. This
requirement attracted widespread criticism among archaeologists, especially
considering the academic duties of directors at their respective universities,
which would inevitably limit time spent on site. For example, The
360 MoCT’s regulations began to refer to the period of time to be spent on site from the mid-
2000s onwards. In this later rescinded directive, MoCT asked for increased human and
financial resources from existing projects, and for them to work longer seasons.
361 The unfavourable reception of this article led to its rescission –subsequent directives [the
2011 Directive (Article 9ğ), the 2013 Directive (Article 11e), and the latest directive of 2016
(Article 9e)] ask for excavations to take place for at least two months.
358
Archaeologists Association and Istanbul University’s Prehistory Department
issued statements in response to the new directive and, among other articles,
referred to problems that would be created by strictly defining how long an
excavation should last (İstanbul Üniversitesi Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı 2010;
Arkeologlar Derneği 2010). As with the earlier three-month directive, longer
excavation seasons were associated with MoCT’s desire to use archaeological
sites for their economic potentials as “the longer the work season, the more
will be revealed, the sooner it will be conserved and restored to attract tourists”
(Özgüner 2015:109)362.
During the interviews carried out for this research, five respondents (26%)
referred longer working periods. One of the respondents, who was working for
an archaeological institute, said their schedules were flexible and allowed them
to carry out longer excavations because they did not have to teach or were
burdened with academic obligations, but they argued that it would be unlikely
for directors working at universities to be able to stay as much. The academic
position of directors was also highlighted by D’Andria (pers. comm. 2011):
We work for three months but MoCT wants us to stay longer. This
cannot happen if MoCT wants professors (i.e. academics) to run
excavations. This is a comprehensive issue because the excavation is a
scientific activity.
One of the directors commented that it would perhaps be easier for Turkish
projects to continue excavating for the desired length of time if the site were
in the city where their university was located, but for them this would not be
possible.
362 As Özgüner (2015:103) notes, this emphasis on longer projects also limits the types of work
that can be carried out to the detriment of shorter, small-scale projects that scientifically can
be just as valuable.
359
4.2.1.5 Co/assistant-directorships
Another issue the respondents raised concerned the appointment of Turkish co-
directors to foreign projects. MoCT’s circular of June 2009, which for the first
time called for such a position (see Chapter 2), led to tensions between foreign
archaeologists, their institutions and MoCT. Foreign institutes and
governments expressed their concerns (Balter 2009:510). Various Turkish
archaeologists, including Hayat Erkanal, were in favour and claimed the
decision was ‘long overdue’, citing other countries, such as Greece and Italy363,
which they said had implemented similar regulations and restrictions regarding
foreign researchers (Erbil 2009). But there were also strong criticisms. Several
Turkish archaeologists, among them Mehmet Özdoğan and Ahmet Yaraş,
considered the measure belittling as in their view it implied the inferiority of
Turkish archaeologists to their foreign counterparts. Özdoğan, likening the
process to a ‘forced marriage’, also argued that it would promote less-qualified
archaeologists to seek foreign partners which would endanger the quality of
archaeological research (Çıplak 2009). Other counter arguments revolved
around the rule’s restrictive nature, which was the main point of concern for
foreign directors.
A new circular in December 2009 changed the Turkish co-directorship into a
Turkish assistant directorship364. Murat Süslü, the Director General of Cultural
Heritage and Museums, cited the reasons for creating an assistantship position
as eliminating various problems that previously used to arise, as well as sharing
responsibility and increasing productivity (Süslü 2012:viii), though it is not
clear what the problems were prior to the assistant-directorship regulation.
363 Francesco D’Andria and Alessandra Ricci, Italian directors of Hierapolis and Küçükyalı
excavations at the time, both argued against co-directorship, and refuted claims that foreign
archaeologists could not work in Italy Berköz (2009).
364 The assistantship was made obligatory also for Turkish-run projects in 2013 with the
revised directive (Article 3n).
360
During the first set of interviews for this research, this new regulation was still
in its infancy and the responsibilities and duties of assistant-directors had not
been clearly defined. Four respondents (21%) expressed their discontent with
a co-directorship position while being more amenable towards an assistant-
directorship position. One respondent stated that the status of a co-director was
against official norms and that it would not work especially with regards to
funding bodies, who recognize the director as the sole authority; however, they
welcomed the positive sides of having an assistant-director particularly in view
of their contribution in dealing with bureaucratic issues. Some stated that the
position of an assistant director was already in place unofficially, therefore an
official requirement to that effect would not cause any problems.
4.2.1.6 Repatriation efforts
Most of the interviews coincided with MoCT’s increased repatriation efforts
that embroiled excavation permits into a conflict. This is one of the more
persistent issues that directly and indirectly impacts conservation, leaving
affected archaeological sites vulnerable to international politics. However,
most likely owing to the sensitivity of the topic, the number of directors who
referred to associated problems was small (four respondents, 21%). Having
said that, the significance of the issue merits some background information
regarding the events that took place before, during and after discussions were
held with respondents.
All archaeological teams (Turkish and foreign) are required to obtain official
permits, renewed annually, in order to carry out research at archaeological sites
in Turkey. Over the past century, permits have become increasingly regulated
so that today, applicants are expected to fulfil a number of obligations to obtain
and renew permits (see Chapter 2). As permits are essential for the continuity
of archaeological research, any changes in regulations must be accommodated
by the applicants, otherwise permits may not be renewed. In the late 2000s and
early 2010s, permits for a number of teams (Turkish and foreign-run) were
revoked, rather unprecedentedly, raising a number of questions as to their
361
justifications. Although MoCT stated that its decisions were solely technical,
others viewed them within a wider context of the government’s nationalist and
populist agenda, as well as MoCT’s aim to make archaeological sites
economically more viable.
The issue played out against a backdrop of MoCT’s emphasis on conservation,
which gained further momentum from the mid-2000s under the Minister
Ertuğrul Günay, who issued various statements regarding the lack of time and
resources invested on archaeological excavations, as well as conservation
efforts, especially aimed at foreign teams (CNNTürk 2008). A news article
reported the Minister’s criticism of the amount of time the German team spent
at Aizanoi (www.haberciniz.biz 2009). In 2010, the Minister stated that he had
been in negotiations with foreign embassies about reshaping the structure of
excavations having claimed that excavations were becoming routine affairs
and that teams spent as little as two weeks on their sites (Yeni Asır 2010b). He
also mentioned on a number of occasions that MoCT would ‘part ways’ with
teams (i.e. revoke their permits), and foreign teams in particular, that did not
comply with the new regulations. A year later, in 2011, three foreign-run
projects (the German-run Aizanoi365 and the two French-run366 at Xanthos and
Letoon), as well as three Turkish-run projects (Nysa, Tralleis and Old Ahlat),
were cancelled367 (Süslü 2012:viii) –the foreign-run projects were eventually
handed over to Turkish directors.
365 A news article suggested the possible reason, citing their excavation periods in the
preceding three seasons, which reportedly were five weeks maximum (Cumhuriyet 2011).
366 One of the repatriation requests of MoCT in 2011 concerned the Ottoman tiles at the Louvre
in France and it was at this stage the permits of the French-run projects at Xanthos and Letoon
were cancelled, calling into question the real motivations behind the cancellations (Schulz
2012). Not all French-run excavation permits were revoked, however. In 2013, a journalist
questioned the-then Minister of Culture and Tourism Ömer Çelik whether Xanthos’ permit
cancellation was a retaliation against the Louvre, but the minister denied this stating the reason
was the French team’s lack of finances (Evers & Knöfel 2013).
367 In fact, an even wider-scaled cancellation dates to 1998 when the Director General Ender
Varinlioğlu cancelled 22 projects on the grounds of lack of publication (Özgüner 2015:305).
362
MoCT maintained that the reason these permits were revoked was lack of site
security, conservation, adequate time spent on site, lack of publications, and
failure to comply with previously submitted work schedules (Süslü 2012:viii).
However, the cancellations, especially of the foreign-run projects, aroused
opposing reactions within archaeological circles in Turkey. One faction was
critical, accusing MoCT of acting against the traditions of Turkish
archaeology, science ethics and of being nationalistic (Eğrikavuk 2011;
Chatzoudis 2012; Eldem 2013; Cevizoğlu 2015); while others welcomed the
developments and said Turkish archaeologists had advanced in recent years
and therefore it was only natural for Turkish archaeologists to take over from
foreigners (Dinçer 2012).
It was, however, the repercussions of MoCTs repatriation efforts that affected
foreign archaeological presence in Turkey on a scale hitherto unseen. MoCT
made repatriation368 its major priority in the late 2000s and began to make
successive claims against foreign institutions. It was the widely publicised
Hattusha Sphinx affair that precipitated the beginning of a tense period
between MoCT and foreign archaeological teams working in Turkey (Yeni
Asır 2010a; Hürriyet 2011a, 2011b; Vatan 2011; Canşen 2011; Habertürk
2011). Discovered in Hattusha in 1907 and subsequently sent to Germany for
restoration purposes, the Hattusha sphinx had been on display in Berlin since
the 1930s (Wiser 2011). After decades of fruitless negotiations (Boz 2012), in
1986, Turkey had issued a formal repatriation request to UNESCO’s
Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property
As Özgüner notes, permits were eventually issued when the Minister of Culture intervened,
resulting in the resignation of the Director General.
368 MoCT may have been encouraged by international developments in this regard. The mid-
2000s saw an increased source-country interest to repatriate artefacts from European and
American institutions claimed to have been illegally obtained –Italy in particular, which made
significant claims concerning American institutions. Also, various institutions, such as the
Archaeological Institute of America, became more sensitive towards making publications of
artefacts acquired after a certain date without a solid provenance, in order to help prevent illicit
trafficking Norman (2005:135).
363
to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation
(ICPRCP), but had not seen any progress in the intervening years.
In 2010, MoCT launched an “aggressive strategy” to get the sphinx back,
likened to Italy’s campaign in the late 2000s to repatriate objects from US
museums (Chechi, Bandle & Renold 2011:4), and directed its focus on
German-run archaeological projects in Turkey. MoCT initially stalled their
permits hoping it would force the German government to return the sphinx
(Finkel 2011; Cevizoğlu 2015:133) but the Minister made it clear that future
permits for Hattusha hinged on this particular repatriation –a move that was
interpreted as an ultimatum369 (Kurt 2010; Güsten 2011a; Hürriyet 2011a). The
Minister also complained of the lack of conservation efforts at Hattusha (Luke
& Kersel 2013:44) and said he would not hesitate in transferring the project to
a Turkish university. The interview revealed that Aizanoi’s permit had been
revoked, the first German project to be cancelled amidst this dispute370. This
was met with protest by the director of the Prussian Cultural Heritage
Foundation, Hermann Parzinger, in charge of the state museums in Berlin, who
said this approach was not conducive to an agreement (Hürriyet Daily News
2011), but days later reports emerged that the sphinx might be returned
(Hickley 2011; Wiser 2011).
The Hattusha sphinx was sent to Turkey in May 2011 as a “voluntary gesture
of friendship” to coincide with the 25th anniversary of Hattusha’s inscription
on the World Heritage List –on the condition that this would be a unique case371
369 When asked whether MoCT was giving an ultimatum, the Minister stated that this was
resoluteness rather than an ultimatum, but he still directly linked the fate of the excavations at
Hattusha with the return of the sphinx (TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı 2011).
370 The director R. von den Hoff is reported to have said their permit was the victim of MoCTs
extreme repatriation claims (Güsten 2011b), though it has also been claimed that Aizanoi had
already lost its scientific importance for the DAI before then, and therefore DAI was not overly
distressed by the decision (Finkel 2011).
371 Germany did not wish for it to set a precedent, and it was claimed that the German
government Germany deliberately refrained from using the terms return or restitution as they
364
(Press and Information Office of the Federal Government 2011). It has since
been on display at the Boğazköy Museum and copies of both sphinxes have
been installed on the site itself.
This was a decidedly significant affair in that it embroiled foreign-run projects
in an international dispute and threatened the continuity of archaeological
research and conservation work. Upon the return of the sphinx, MoCT
embarked on a fresh campaign against European and American museums it
claimed had numerous illegally obtained artefacts (Güsten 2011b) –a move
labelled as war against/between museums (n.d; Schulz 2012; Evers & Knöfel
2013). The following two years continued to be dominated by its
repercussions.
The significance attributed to repatriation in this period was emphasized by
Murat Süslü, the-then Director General of Cultural Heritage and Museums, in
his opening speech at the 33rd ERM in 2011, during which he claimed that
Turkey has had two important issues to deal with since 1971: Turkey’s
accession into the EU and the sphinx issue. It was at the same event that he
also stated that they would not be partnering with the respective museums until
the Samsat Stele (in the British Museum), Weary Herakles statue (Boston
Museum of Fine Arts) and the Ottoman tiles (Louvre Museum) were returned.
This new campaign alarmed numerous museums across the world (Felch 2012;
The Economist 2012; Bailey 2012; Jones 2012) and attracted significant
international attention372, especially following the return of the Weary
Herakles a few months after the Hattusha Sphinx (BBC News 2011; Edgers
2011). In December 2012, Hermann Parzinger, the director of the Prussian
would imply Germany’s unlawful acquisition of the sculpture (Chechi, Bandle & Renold
2011:4).
372 The main line taken by the international media revolved around the argument that Turkey
was blackmailing and exploiting scientific research to reach its goals, though there were also
a few sympathetic articles.
365
Cultural Heritage Foundation, gave a very critical interview and accused
Turkey of not keeping its word on cooperation following the agreement
regarding the sphinx and instead pursuing artefacts in German museums
(Çizmecioğlu 2012). The Minister Ömer Çelik’s response was unflinching
(Evers & Knöfel 2013), and although he expressed MoCTs wish to continue
working with the Germans, he was critical of their approach towards Turkey’s
claims.
During this time, Felix Pirson, the director of the Pergamon excavation and
head of the Istanbul branch of DAI, penned an article in which he recalled the
long history of archaeological collaboration between the two countries and
Germany’s commitment to not only archaeological research but also site
conservation, which can also be interpreted as a response to MoCT’s argument
that some German excavations did not pay due diligence to site conservation,
and proposed further forms of collaboration with state agencies (Pirson 2013).
Against this tense background, the early 2010s impacted particularly the work
of German-run projects, as the return of the sphinx initially appeared to have
failed to calm the waters. One problematic incident involved Göbekli Tepe
where, in 2010, an artefact discovered during the excavation was stolen the
following day. The excavation was put on hold and DAI fined; the Minister
later stating that permit cancellation had been considered (Hürriyet 2010;
Çekirge 2012; Güsten 2012). The incident provided a convenient case for
MoCT, and was highlighted by Murat Süslü, the-then Director-General of
Cultural Heritage and Museums, during the 33rd ERM in 2011, in reference to
the importance of site security and responsibilities of permit holders373.
373 Subsequent legislative directives contain articles (articles 11k in 2013 and 8h in 2016) that
appear to have been directly linked with this incident, which state that moveable cultural assets
exposed during excavations have to be documented on the day of their discovery and removed
safely to the storage area, and in cases where this cannot be carried out, the responsibility of
providing security measures lies with the excavation director.
366
In 2012, German teams were informed that they would not be allowed to
excavate that season and their focus should be on conservation374. Only Göbekli
Tepe received a special permit to dig, restricted to those areas where the
columns supporting the new shelter were going to go. A German respondent,
interviewed in 2012, explained the process through which they were informed
by MoCT, and expressed concern that it may be perceived as an overall threat
against all foreign-run excavations:
Two weeks after the ERM, German directors were summoned to MoCT
and we were told that there was a possibility that we could not excavate
this season. Later, the first German team that started the season got a
letter from MoCT telling them they cannot dig but should focus on
conservation work instead. Then, other German directors got similar
letters. We are not sure why the Germans got it, maybe because we run
most of the foreign excavations. It could also be a warning for other
foreign-run excavations.
He also said they had managed to contain the issue that season, as they had a
lot of backlog to assess, and they also focused on site conservation, but the
problem was that it was very last-minute, and they may not be able to
accommodate such modifications each year.
This relates to another issue that some of the directors raised, concerning
MoCT’s tendency of perceiving foreign projects of one particular country as
one entity. For example, the crisis between Turkey and Germany regarding the
repatriation of the Hattusha sphinx in 2011 impacted not only the DAI-
operated Hattusha project but all other German projects, even those that were
not affiliated with DAI but whose directors were of German universities. A
374 As a result most of the German reports in the ERM proceedings for the year 2012 are on
conservation work.
367
director of a non-DAI German excavation explained how his work was
delayed375 because of tensions between MoCT and the DAI:
MoCT’s problem with the DAI was ad-hoc and it implicated not only
DAI-run excavations but us too –we are not run by DAI. Our permit
was delayed as well, issued only 10 days before the planned excavation
start date. Visas had to be issued very quickly. The airfares, of course,
cost much more. So, even though the problem was supposed to have
been with DAI, we also lived through problems.
In fact, the ministers of Culture and Tourism of this period also displayed
favouritism by publicly comparing different countries and institutions –
probably openly for the first time. In 2011, Ertuğrul Günay said that some
archaeological institutes showed more effort than others in ‘restoration, new
museum constructions, conservation and maintenance’, while Germany,
although working at important sites, was not demonstrating befitting action
(TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı 2011). Two years later, Ömer Çelik, the
minister at the time, in the interview he gave to Der Spiegel, endorsed Japanese
and Belgian teams and their “landscaping and all security measures” and
criticised two German-run projects –the lack of effort of the German team at
Miletus with regards to the periodic flooding of the site376, emphasizing that
they had been working there for 114 years; and again the burglary at Göbekli
Tepe (Evers & Knöfel 2013).
4.2.1.7 One-fits-all approach
Another issue three respondents (16%) raised is related to MoCT’s expectation
of similar interventions at different sites without taking into consideration site-
375 In 2013, it was reported that excavation permits for many foreign projects were delayed by
MoCT, which meant increase in flight costs, and possibly jeopardising the availability of team
members and existing funding (Stonington 2013).
376 See Taschner (2014) for the German-run project’s recent work on flooding problems at
Miletus.
368
specific factors. They were critical of MoCT’s uninformed and hasty decisions,
observed in a variety of instances ranging from specific conservation
interventions to site presentation techniques, which several respondents also
associated with a lack of proper qualifications of those who were making
assessments. “What is appropriate for Pergamon does not necessarily mean
that it is appropriate here”, said A. Schachner (pers. comm. 2015). He also
referred to MoCT’s enquiry on why they do not use mortar in their restoration
work, which he says they cannot do because mortar was not used in Hattusha.
Although he wrote a report explaining their justifications, there were still
enquiries as to why he was not using mortar.
The re-use of cross-ties from old railways is a widespread example of how
MoCT perceives sites to be no different from the other, regardless of their
material remains or the landscapes in which they are situated. Many sites are
now adorned with walkways built using these cross-ties. Some of the directors
were critical of this decision, referring to their health hazards377. Another
potential health hazard was pointed out by A. Schachner (pers. comm. 2015),
who while acknowledging that MoCT is inundated with numerous issues and
therefore may not be particularly knowledgeable about each case, was critical
nevertheless of their approach towards the use of herbicides:
MoCT wishes us to use herbicides to get rid of plants at the site. I have
consulted with local agriculturists and they told me that it would be
hazardous for people and animals. In order for this material to work,
we would have to spray 200 hectares of land, which would be
catastrophic for the environment.
377 Cross-ties are considered to be dangerous waste materials in European countries (Genç &
Kartal 2014:244), and therefore their use in open areas, let alone their uncontrolled disposal,
poses serious health risks.
369
4.2.1.8 Expectation of fast results
MoCT’s urge for faster excavations and conservation interventions were
mentioned by three respondents (16%). Their main concerns revolved around
the damage this might inflict on research and conservation work. One
respondent stressed that excavations were scientific activities that should not
be rushed and explained how they felt pressured to excavate at a pace that may
eventually be detrimental to the goal of their project:
There is a general problem, which is not confined to foreign-run
excavations: MoCT is pushing us to excavate more quickly… We need
data, we need to do analyses etc. and this takes time…. Ankara wants
everything to be finished fast.
D’Andria (pers. comm. 2011) pointed out the problems this expectation can
cause for architectural conservation:
Another issue is the fact that restoration is much hastened. Buildings
should be researched and interpreted after their excavation, and only
then should their restoration project be prepared and implemented. It is
a mistake when restoration follows immediately after the excavation.
Schachner (pers. comm. 2015) described the pressure they were under to get
quick results without much concern for sustainability and emphasized that
restoration works should not be considered as if they are contractor jobs.
4.2.1.9 Assessment of excavations
Another issue raised is the way MoCT assesses archaeological excavations.
From the 2004 directive onwards, MoCT emphasized its concern to have
institutionalised and long-term archaeological projects, and introduced
assessment procedures concerning excavation and conservation processes (see
Chapter 2). While this was interpreted by most as an attempt by MoCT to
reduce the number of projects, MoCT maintained that their concern was to
ensure working with “financially and administratively sufficient and
370
scientifically institutionalized excavations” (Süslü 2012:vii). MoCT’s desire to
further streamline its bureaucratic responsibilities, particularly in view of the
issue of lack of personnel to monitor the growing number of archaeological
surveys and excavations (Pasinli 2002, 2003), and also the general lack of
human and financial resources, as well as coordination issues that incapacitated
MoCT (Şahin Güçhan & Kurul 2009:35), may be the contributing factors
behind this direction.
In line with this approach, MoCT has been assessing the progress of
excavations according to architectural conservation work, site
presentation/landscaping, excavation techniques, expropriations, excavation
house, storage facilities, and site security etc. The most common observations
of the Review Commission are the insufficient levels of the following (MoCT
comm. 2016):
• site conservation measures during or after excavation seasons
• architectural conservation projects
• excavation house, site and storage security
• time spent on excavation and conservation
The comments of three respondents (16%) who referred to MoCT’s assessment
system focused on its review of archaeological processes only. Noting the
restrictive nature of assessment criteria, they stated that the questions asked did
not represent the true nature of scientific research378:
We sometimes receive ‘evaluation sheets’ which are based on a ratio
comparing the budget of the excavation and the number of objects
given to the museum after the excavation season. We feel that this
process reveals a misunderstanding of archaeological activity. For
378 These types of interrogations are associated with a mentality that considers excavations as
construction trenches (Özdoğan 2011).
371
example, digging one tomb with very little money could bring much
more (in term of objects) than excavating a whole theatre with a very
large budget.
MoCT’s assessment criteria is problematic: it weighs its expectations
in ‘tons’. It asks you questions like “how much earth is dug”, “how
much time is spent on site”, “how many showers do you have” or “how
many refrigerators do you have” etc. These are crude measures.
One respondent also commented on the way MoCT expected actual
excavations every year and that the system, and therefore assessment criteria,
did not allow for study seasons where information collected in previous years
is processed. Another respondent referred to an impromptu visit of MoCT
officials to 10 excavations in the area about which they received no feedback.
4.2.1.10 Subsidies
Turkish legislation does not allow for visitor entrance fees collected at specific
sites to contribute towards the conservation work carried out by the excavation
teams. The revenue goes to MoCT’s Directorate of Revolving Fund, which
then distributes it among institutions within the Ministry’s remit (Shoup,
Bonini Baraldi & Zan 2015:45–46). Two respondents (11%) raised the issue
of lack of subsidization of conservation work through the visitor fees. They
emphasized that their archaeological projects directly contributed to the
increase in visitor numbers, and therefore they should be allowed to take a
share of the revenue for conservation:
Another problem is the fact that the revenue from tourists is not directed
to and received by the excavations and therefore cannot be used
towards restoration work. Especially large sites like Ephesus, Troy etc
have large numbers of visitors but the money received from those
visitors does not return in any way to the excavation team.
372
Local authorities repeatedly maintain that the excavation is also an
economic factor (500.000 visitors per year at present – which is the
result of the excavation work). But we do not get anything in return. A
certain share of income should be negotiated.
This issue was previously raised by other directors. In particular it was
highlighted as a solution for covering site maintenance costs (Korfmann
1992a:35; Radt 2006c:61). It was also mentioned in the management plan of
Aphrodisias. The SWOT analysis identifies the fact that visitor revenues
cannot be used for the site itself as a weakness (Karaman 2013:9).
4.2.2 Financial issues
Seven respondents (37%) cited financial issues as obstacles in carrying out
conservation work and for hiring conservation experts. Also highlighted was
the difficulty in locating funding bodies that support conservation work in
Turkey. That funding for conservation was not as forthcoming as for
archaeological research was particularly noted. This problem was also noted
by K. Schmidt previously, in relation to Göbekli Tepe (Global Heritage Fund
2012). One respondent stated:
A general problem is that the Ministry expects restoration works, but
the excavation team gets funding for research but not as easily for
restorations.
Another respondent spoke of the waning presence of sponsors, which in the
formative years of their project had strongly backed them:
The site and its fame have been consumed by sponsors, so lately they
no longer want to give us money. The spell of the site is broken.
Several respondents also referred to difficulties in securing funding from
outside Turkey, specifically for architectural/ site conservation. One of the
major reasons they cited, in relation to funding bodies in their own countries
(mainly research councils in central Europe), was that these organisations
373
consider ‘conservation/restoration’ to be a different field, separate from
archaeology, and one that is not research-based unless the project for which
funding was sought involved artefact conservation. The respondents stated that
such bodies regarded conservation of ancient monuments and other
architectural/site scale interventions as primarily tourism-oriented and as such
the responsibility of the Turkish state:
…it is difficult to find funding for conservation. For Germany, heritage
conservation is the responsibility of the country itself.
…funding bodies here do not consider conservation work as scientific
research. Therefore, most of the funding necessary for conservation
comes from private sponsors who are found through fund-raising
events carried out by the director.
No institution in Europe gives money for restoration work in Turkey.
4.2.3 Local dimension
Four respondents (21%) mentioned problems related to lack of local support
and lack of collaboration of both authorities and the public as issues impacting
their conservation efforts. Of those, two respondents referred to issues that
caused friction with local communities and archaeological teams, which
mostly centred around the use of the site for other purposes, and lack of interest
in the archaeological site and the project as a whole.
One of the problems regarding local use is animal grazing (a recurrent issue
also cited in the ERM reports). At Hattusha locals have used the ancient site
for animal grazing for centuries and continue to do so because the area is full
of agricultural fields with no other suitable land available (Schachner pers.
comm. 2015). A. Schachner explained how the former director P. Neve fenced
the whole site but was unsuccessful in keeping the villagers and animals at bay.
Schachner, however, is of the opinion that animal grazing is useful for the site
as it keeps grass short, which minimizes fire risks and enhances visibility of
374
ruins. He gave the example of Xanthen, an archaeological site in Germany,
where the government pays local farmers for animal grazing on the site –
previously, W. Radt suggested a similar method for Pergamon (2006c:61).
Although in favour of grazing, he noted the villagers’ use of the most obviously
attractive locations for it.
Another respondent reported an issue that represents a lack of local concern
for the archaeological value of the site:
There are local people who want to build pansiyons and they want to
have a road that cuts through the ancient stadium for ease of visitor
access to their facilities.
Vandalism may be directed not only at the ancient remains but also on
conservation measures to protect the site. I. Caneva (pers. comm. 2012)
explained the problems they faced at Yumuktepe:
The höyük is situated in a very difficult neighbourhood. The mudbrick
walls are topped up with new mudbrick for conservation purposes.
Earlier we were covering mudbricks with nylon, but these would be
torn by locals –they even stole new mudbrick we placed on the walls.
These acts of vandalisms stem from a lack of local interest in the site, she said,
because they are migrants from eastern provinces with no particular attachment
towards the site. She stated that creating an archaeological park, an ambition
of hers for the past 20 years, would have benefited the local community in
engaging them with the site. She noted that, as her university could not fund
such a project in Turkey, she continuously sought the support of the
governorship, but without progress379. Similarly, E. Equini-Schneider lamented
the lack of local authority interest in Elaiussa Sebaste (pers. comm. 2015):
379 As noted in Chapter 3, there are positive developments on this issue.
375
The local authority does not really want to preserve the archaeological
site... The necropolis is one of the most important in Turkey, yet tombs
are used as garages.
4.2.4 Professional resources
Some of the respondents expressed their desire for consistency in their teams.
This they considered critical to ensure standardized conservation
interventions380. In practice, however, there are various hindering factors.
Three respondents (16%) referred to lack of funding (expenses in relation to
engaging a conservation expert for a full season), academic commitments (if
the expert has an academic post), and lack of available conservation
professionals to commit for the entire excavation season, as main factors
impacting the setting up of such long-term teams.
Some sites enjoy relatively more permanency in their teams (at least in the
heads of conservation), particularly where long-term anastylosis projects are
carried out, such as Aphrodisias, Pergamon, Sagalassos and Sardis where the
same group of conservation experts and architects have been working for many
years. But the majority of teams are formed differently because of the issues
mentioned above. Among those, at Kaman-Kalehöyük, for example, the
director of conservation/head of conservation, stays at the dig for about 20 days
of a 2-month excavation season. Also, they have been unable to engage a
permanent field conservator who was agreeable to staying at the dig throughout
the excavation season (this post also requires working at the other two
Japanese-run excavations, so effectively involves 3-4 months of on-site
presence). Although continuity is desired, therefore, it cannot be established as
380 One of the earlier recorded references to the importance of having regular and continuous
teams was written by Filgis and Mayer (1992:102), who together established the first set of
conservation principles for Troy. They urged for continuity of the people involved as in their
view knowledge of the site was essential in making difficult decisions.
376
yet, and a new person has to be recruited each year381. Similarly, the former
head of conservation at Çatalhöyük, the academic E. Pye, was unable to stay
at the site for longer than two weeks, and other conservators could only stay
for four weeks whereas excavations lasted considerably longer. I. Hodder
(pers. comm. 2015) explained that most academics cannot stay for long and
that the project could not afford to have private consultants stay for any length
of time.
4.2.5 Discussion / emerging themes
Among the different subjects mentioned by the respondents, the most
problematic issues are seen to be those related with the operational and
regulatory frameworks within which conservation is practiced, while financial,
professional and local issues featured relatively less in relation to their impacts
on conservation work382 (Figure 4.23).
Of particularly concern in the operational and regulatory category are the lack
of consultation, institutional cooperation, and the emphasis on extensive
architectural projects. Consultation is mentioned in relation to central and local
authorities, especially where it involved information on regulatory changes,
conservation planning and tender processes. Issues raised with regards to
institutional cooperation primarily centre on conflicting decisions of
responsible organisations. Comments about the emphasis on extensive
architectural projects focus mainly on MoCT’s ill-informed requests. Concerns
are also raised with regards to maintaining a balance between archaeological
research and conservation work.
381 One attempt to resolve the problem was to recruit two conservators to work for shorter
periods (Boccia Paterakis pers. comm. 2015).
382 The interviews give only a glimpse of the myriad of issues that directors and teams deal
with on a regular basis during conservation work –no doubt equally critical examples can be
drawn from many other projects.
377
Figure 4.23 Issues impacting conservation practices
The matter of financial resources is not an especially pressing issue. While this
may suggest that the respondents had the necessary resources, it may also be
the case that, as Özgüner (2015:309) points out in relation to the ERMs, that
concerns regarding their permits could be preventing them from being too
candid, because technically foreign teams are obliged to have the necessary
funding for archaeological research and conservation in order to renew their
permits383.
The lack of local funding for conservation work, which was one of the findings
of the previous section, may be viewed in relation to the lack of local
ownership of archaeological projects mentioned by some of respondents. Lack
of local funding, however, is not raised specifically as a conservation problem.
The range of issues covered by the respondents during the interviews contrasts
with the relatively limited representation of issues in the ERM proceedings,
where directors primarily note issues that affect archaeological practices in
383 This apprehension may be diminishing somewhat, however, as one of the most common
complaints voiced by directors to MoCT concerned difficulties in securing funding for
conservation (MoCT comm. 2016). On the other hand, one of the most recurrent problems
cited by directors in relation to archaeological research was issues with regards to
expropriation of land (MoCT comm. 2016), but as the present research focused on
conservation practices, this was not brought up at all by the respondents.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Operational andregulatory
Financial Local dimension Professionalresources
378
general, with only some that can be linked to conservation. Examples of issues
impacting conservation that do feature in the ERM proceedings are mostly
related with the following384 (examples of each are given with the name of the
site and year of season in the ERMs):
• land-use (new development either on or adjacent to conservation
areas, agricultural facilities, animal grazing etc.) (Troy 1992,
Elaiussa Sebaste 1995, Hattusha 1997, Sardis 2005)
• tourism (Ephesus 1996, Ephesus 2001, Hierapolis 2003, Göbekli
Tepe 2012)
• illicit excavations (Sardis 1999, Troy 2006, Sardis 2007,
Sagalassos 2010, Kyme 2011)
• vandalism (Hattusha 1990, Pergamon 2009 and 2003, Troy 2006)
In the ERM reports, but for a few exceptions, directors usually do not refer to
issues specifically related to MoCT or its operations385. There is scant, if any,
reference to the recent MoCT policies and their impacts on their practices. For
example, the directors generally do not refer to permit-related issues386.
Taking the lead from the issues raised, the remainder of this section focuses on
two emerging themes. In view of the operational and regulatory issues referred
to by the respondents, MoCT’s approach towards archaeological sites with
regards to their conservation and valorisation is the first theme. The second
384 There is also a reference to lack of conservation professionals (Aphrodisias 1987), lack of
equipment (Hierapolis 1990) to carry out proper conservation work, and one instance where a
director refers to a regulatory change that impacted their conservation team structure (Gordion
2004).
385In a rare exception, Karwiese (1998:736), the director of Ephesos, wrote in a separate report
on conservation work of their increased responsibilities owing to general trends of archaeology
and the requests made, and lack of increased funds to deal with them.
386 One of the exceptions is K. Schmidt, the director of Göbekli Tepe, who mentions that they
had to revise their schedule because they were not issued a permit for their spring season
(Schmidt 2013:79). References to a team member not being permitted to work is similarly rare.
One recent incident was reported at Priene (Raeck, Mert & Filges 2014:53).
379
focuses on recent developments concerning foreign archaeological presence
with a view to address their implications for conservation of archaeological
sites.
4.2.5.1 MoCT’s approach towards archaeological sites and their
conservation
One of the factors impacting the holistic conservation of archaeological sites
is MoCT’s narrow view of conservation as primarily about architectural
interventions and their potential for tourism. Its pressure on teams to carry out
conservation projects fast, favour for re-erections, and concerns about times
spent on site, etc. are some of the issues mentioned by the respondents that
highlight this. In general, there appears to be a lack of understanding about the
wider perspective of conservation that recognizes landscapes and community
involvement.
Conflict between research, conservation and tourism
During the 1st National Symposium on the Conservation and Valorisation of
Archaeological Sites387 in 1990, the Director General of Cultural Assets and
Museums Altan Akat, stated (ed. Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel
Müdürlüğü 1992:10):
I believe that restricting our perception of and approach to
archaeological sites with only hard ‘conservation’ is not realistic. These
sites can contribute to people of this age if conservation can be
integrated with valorisation and appropriate use. This integrated
conservation [approach] should be part of a planning process.
The MoC at this date was defining its approach towards archaeological sites
through a ‘soft conservation’ that went beyond scientific conservation and that
387 Foreign excavation directors and conservation experts at the time, including Manfred
Korfmann, Friedmund Hueber, Peter Neve, Kenneth Sams, and Klaus Rheidt also attended
and contributed to the event.
380
could be beneficial to a variety of stakeholders. In that sense, an emphasis on
conservation was running parallel to benefiting from the economic potentials
of archaeological sites. The problem was (and remains) that they not only
overlap but are also usually confused with one another.
Conservation, or calls for more conservation, was repeatedly brought to the
attention of excavation directors in subsequent years. Significant in this context
are the successive speeches given by Alpay Pasinli, the Director-General of
Monuments and Museums at the 23rd and 24th ERMs in the early 2000s, in
which he made conservation one of his main topics. He noted that some
directors appeared to be content with obtaining research results but were not
particularly interested in restoring the cultural heritage that their research
revealed, which in effect was the “world’s common heritage”, representing
“universal values” that “belong to all countries”; the restoration388 of these
sites, therefore, was a mutual responsibility (Pasinli 2002, 2003).
It should be noted that in one of these speeches, Pasinli specifically addressed
foreign directors. Emphasizing the conducive research environment that
Turkey created compared with other countries, he stressed that this came with
certain expectations, which had not been met389. He also warned directors that
they would be forced to reconsider those that neglected to take conservation
measures. This effectively presages the position Günay would take later.
While these remarks reflect an understanding of conservation in the sense that
they recognize the importance of conservation during and after excavation
seasons, they also demonstrate that the authority holds archaeologists
responsible for conservation –this was in accordance with the regulations in
388 It should be noted here that, the phrase used was to ‘restore’ (implying architectural
conservation) and not ‘conserve’ (which would reflect a more holistic understanding).
389 That foreign-run projects were less concerned with site conservation appears to have been
a common view in this period –see Cevdet Bayburtluoğlu in Ateşoğulları (2002).
381
place since the 1970s. What this process also shows, however, is the growing
realisation of the potentials of archaeological sites for the national economy.
In many respects, these developments herald the legislations put in place in the
mid-2000s that placed an emphasis on conservation as well as assessment
procedures that make conservation an integral part of permit renewals. In other
words, MoCT’s most recent focus on conservation and what it entailed
originated much earlier, and are the culmination of a process that began in the
1980s-early 1990s. As Shoup (2008:324) notes, while previously it was usually
up to archaeologists to define the values of archaeological sites, the State began
taking an active role in defining what archaeological sites are for –which
gradually tipped the balance in favour of tourism.
This has resulted in a conflict between research, conservation and tourism –a
global problem in fact (Killebrew & Lehmann 1999:4; Matero 2006:62;
Trigger 2006:544; Vacharopoulou 2006b). In Turkey, this conflict has become
more acute as MoCT’s emphasis on site conservation and presentation became
more pronounced. Noteworthy in this context is the former Minister of Culture,
Talay’s (2002) call in 2001 that “advanced-level [i.e. long-standing]
excavations should be halted and restoration should begin”. This not only
highlights official expectations but reveals a shift in strategy. The comments
of one respondent sum up this lingering dilemma as “a mismatch between what
we want [i.e. archaeological information] and what MoCT wants [i.e.
conservation and presentation of ancient remains]”.
This conflict has become increasingly more noticeable since the late 2000s
with MoCT’s growing emphasis on conservation and presentation of
archaeological sites as reflected in the relevant legislative changes. In the new
era, economic benefit surpassed that of ‘knowledge production’, other
archaeological research methods particularly short-terms surveys were less
recognized, and visible sites (i.e. classical) were preferred (Özdoğan 2006a;
Shoup 2008; Özdoğan 2011; Özgüner 2015). The perceived diminishing role
382
of archaeological research was criticized390. The comment of one respondent
reflects this concern:
For years, there was no conservation, so it is good that they ask for
conservation measures. But now we feel that the scientific side of our
research has become less important than conservation, whereas they
should be considered equally important.
Other archaeologists also remarked on the impact this emphasis had on their
projects: for some it meant that the extent of archaeological research had to be
limited (Cevizoğlu 2015:152), or some argued that it has made scientific
research more difficult (Kasiske 2013).
These criticisms are a reflection of the State’s bipolar attitude where
archaeological sites are concerned. It was noted that while MoCT asks
archaeological teams to address conservation issues, the government berates
archaeologists for hindering development and sacrifices numerous
archaeological sites for so-called development projects (Chatzoudis 2012;
Eldem 2013; Cevizoğlu 2015).
Concerns especially centred on the use of archaeological sites for tourism
purposes. Eldem (2013:23), claimed that the government was pressuring
archaeological teams to be more productive, which in fact meant to be more
profitable for the economy that relied heavily on tourism. This issue was
voiced at various public events. For example, Adnan Diler, during the 1st
International Symposium on Archaeological Practices: Principles of
Conservation and Application in Archaeological Sites in Denizli in 2013, said:
Our archaeological practice does not hinge on tourism aspirations. That
would mean perceiving archaeology as the furniture of tourism and if
390 It has been claimed that the emphasis on conservation, presentation and management has
led to a decrease in the number of scientific publications on sites and materials (Laflı 2015:5).
383
that were the case archaeological sites with no touristic prospects would
receive less financial support. This approach can also cause
misunderstandings on the parts of locals, who may expect tourism to
flourish once a site is excavated.
There are in fact striking parallels between MoCT’s requests and the tourism
industry’s expectations of archaeological teams. Although there are no
legislative grounds to do so, MoCT has rebuked teams because of their
perceived slowness, an issue mentioned by other archaeologists beyond the
interviewed respondents. For example, H Cevizoğlu (2015:132), the assistant-
director at Didyma, stated that MoCT considered the speed of conservation and
restoration work at the site inadequate, despite the fact that conservation
formed the largest portion of the project budget. Hierapolis391 demonstrates a
poignant case where both the local media and tourism operators pressure for
faster work, which in their view can be accomplished by Turkish universities392
–comparisons with the speed of excavations and restorations at the Turkish-
run Laodikeia, in the same province, were made393. The Denizli Tourist
Hoteliers and Managers Association demanded faster excavations and asked
for the excavation to be handed over to Turkish archaeologists if the Italians
were unable to deliver (Yeni Asır 2010b).
391 Torun also noted the directly proportioned increase in expectations and interventions of
stakeholders and decision-makers with the progress made at Sagalassos that put the site more
visibly on the map (Torun & Ceylan 2013:14).
392 Even the titles of some of these articles are quite telling and reveal nationalist sentiments.
Three examples concerning Hierapolis are: “Yet again with the man who cannot dig”, “56-
year Italian rule at Hierapolis finally over”, “The Italian mission could not do in 46 years what
the Turks have done in 4.5” (Memurlar.Net 2012; Ege Postası 2013; Denizli Güncel 2016).
393 Laodikeia is a deliberate comparison owing to the speed with which so-called conservation
work is carried out. The work at Laodikeia is highly questionable due to the use of
inappropriate materials and techniques.
384
MoCT’s site-specific requests and the level of desired interventions394 are also
of concern. Respondents referred to their randomness, sometimes instigated by
the visit of a high-ranking official who does not have first-hand experience of
the site, as well as ad-hoc and unsuited requests that may conflict with previous
requests, demonstrating a lack of consistency. Pirson (2013), for example,
stated that he welcomed the concern for archaeological sites but said that
sometimes the extent of requests was inappropriate. These interventions
display a disregard for the scope of detailed scientific effort that goes into
archaeological and conservation projects, as well as a denouncement of expert
opinion –the latter in fact reflects an emerging trend (Meskell 2013b:236).
The extent of the some of the requests, which put emphasis on ambitious
architectural work, are in fact contrary to MoCT’s own regulations. In June
2005, MoCT issued a directive (see Chapter 2) which in its Article 26 advised
that anastylosis projects should be planned according to the general appearance
of the site after excavations, and that if on the whole the site lacked the third
dimension, an ancient monument should not be re-erected through an
anastylosis even if original pieces existed. In the following article, it is stated
that infills to sustain an ancient monument should be kept at a minimum. These
directives present a holistic interpretation of the site that shuns the creation of
artificial focal points, but in practice MoCT does not implement them.
394 This is a problem observed at a global scale as the level of conservation interventions
observed in archaeological sites has been called to question internationally for a number of
years. In the early 2000s, Heritage at Risk reports cited ‘overzealous’ and ‘inaccurate’
restorations as threats to cultural heritage (Petzet 2002; Bouchenaki 2005), indicating an
alarming trend at archaeological sites. More recently, Araoz (2011:56) noted one of the recent
trends in the heritage practice as “the extreme anastylosis of archeological ruins justified as
interpretation to make archeological sites more attractive and intellectually accessible.” These
projects that border on reconstructions, for commercial, educational, and experimental
archaeology purposes, have also been on ICOMOS’ agenda. Their survey on the permissibility
and standards for physical and virtual reconstructions, conducted in 2013-2014, attests to these
developments, with a majority of respondents claiming that the main purpose for physical
reconstructions is commercial, with funding coming primarily from public resources rather
than private entities (ICOMOS ISC on Interpretation and Presentation 2014).
385
What has been less questioned, however, is the quality of conservation projects
that result from this fast-track pressure. There is a danger of hasty conservation
interventions being carried out in order to demonstrate tangible results in a
short period, without allowing the required time for analyses or assessments.
Eres (2010b:102) rightly points out that MoCT is only viewing archaeological
excavations as sites for architectural conservation projects and indicates that it
is not concerned with the qualifications or prior expertise of those who carry
out these projects.
The emphasis on extensive architectural interventions and fast results has led
to some drastic projects at several archaeological sites in Turkey and has now
required MoCT to speak against such inferior projects. This issue was raised
during successive ERMs in recent years by MoCT officials. During the 33rd
ERM in 2011, Murat Süslü, the then Director General of Cultural Assets and
Museums, stated that they were observing some so-called restorations that are
erroneous, and likewise during the 34th ERM in 2012, Melik Ayaz emphasized
that building from scratch does not constitute restoration, referring to a rather
rare debate that followed one of the ERM presentations. Similarly, during the
35th ERM in 2014, the representative speaking on behalf of MoCT stated they
were more concerned with the conservation of excavated remains rather than
speed, and that their intention was to remedy earlier neglect. At the 37th ERM
in 2015, the Vice Assistant Director General of Cultural Assets and Museums,
remarked during the first moments of his closing speech:
The level of restoration that needs to be carried out is known to us all
[in view of international principles]. Our Ministry is more concerned
with conservation rather than excavation, so as to preserve heritage for
future generations. At several excavations, however, we notice that
unearthed buildings are built almost from scratch. I would like to
remind you that you should observe scientific criteria in your
conservation work.
386
While these remarks reveal a level of concern that finds its origins in a
legislatively solid background for architectural conservation, they do not
necessarily negate MoCT’s pressure on the ground. The issues raised in this
section demonstrate that MoCT views archaeological sites mainly through a
lens of tourism, thereby exacerbating the conflict between other values of
archaeological sites.
Lack of a holistic perspective on archaeological sites
MoCT’s lack of a holistic perspective on archaeological sites also impacts
conservation practices. This issue is raised in connection with three topics.
Firstly, the use of management plans primarily for WHS nomination
procedures, without encouragement of its more widespread use as a tool for
heritage conservation. Secondly, a lack of a cultural landscape perspective,
which betrays a fragmented understanding of heritage conservation. And
finally, a lack of community perspective.
MoCT’s embrace of management plans as a conservation tool for
archaeological sites is strongly linked to WHS nomination procedures395.
Turkey’s interest in WHSs intensified in the early 2000s after a hiatus and
became a matter of prestige for the State396 (Atakuman 2010). UNESCO’s
revised operational guidelines and the 2004 legislative change397 in Turkey
resulted in a growing interest in management plans. It was the early 2010s,
however, that this gained more momentum.
395 UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention revised its requirements in 2005 to include an “appropriate management plan or
other documented management system’ for future nominations (paragraph 108). Turkey had
changed its heritage law to accommodate management plans the year before.
396 Atakuman (2010:114–116) points at the close relationship between these nominations and
Turkey’s EU integration process.
397 Çatalhöyük’s management plan of 2004 is claimed to have been a catalyst for MoCT to add
the site on its WHS Tentative List (Atalay et al. 2010:11) and was considered a useful exemplar
for the subsequent the inclusion of management plans into cultural heritage legislation (Atalay
et al. 2010:11; The Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2013:26).
387
At this stage, MoCT was more public about its urge to include more sites on
the WH List398 and urged archaeological directors to work towards that end399.
One specific example attesting to this dates to 2012, when Günay, the-then
Minister of Culture and Tourism, made a point of referring to the ‘slowness of
WH nominations’ during the 35th ERM. Using Ephesos as an example, he
noted that despite its presence on the Tentative List since 2000, there had been
no progress regarding its nomination. Similarly, he queried why Pergamon, for
instance, had still not been proposed for the Tentative List. He was of the
opinion that some directors (Turkish and foreign) were uncomfortable with the
idea of World Heritage Site inscription and this was hindering further
nominations.
The increase in management plan preparations, therefore, needs to be
considered in this light. Eres & Yalman (2013:40) argue that archaeological
sites became MoCT’s focus for Turkey’s WH nominations due to the relative
ease with which their outstanding universal values can be defined and
management plans prepared, compared to urban sites and monumental
buildings. This, they state, has led to MoCT’s push for management plans. It
is worth noting that the management plans for five of the researched sites were
completed in 2013-14 400.
The argument that nominations indirectly contributed towards MoCT’s
increased interest in archaeological sites (Eres & Yalman 2013:40), however,
hides MoCT’s fragmented approach towards archaeological conservation.
398 Turkey is not alone in this haste, and many other States around the world ‘rush to inscribe’
more sites (Meskell 2012) in an arena that has become increasingly politicised, marked by
national alliances and less concern for conservation (Meskell 2013a, 2013b).
399 Archaeological teams also contribute to WH nomination dossiers. As Human (2015:179)
notes, one of the reasons for this approach is the “increasing level of professionalised expertise
required to carry out these nominations”.
400 Of those, Aphrodisias, Ephesus and Pergamon gained WHS status subsequently, while
Çatalhöyük had already become a WHS in 2012.
388
MoCT focuses only on a select number of sites without making proper use of
what management plans can offer other archaeological sites.
This leads to one of the most significant aspects, to which the respondents’
comments also attest: MoCT’s lack of a cultural landscape conservation
perspective. MoCT does not consider the wider territories of archaeological
sites but instead focuses on excavated areas as places that are separate from
their surroundings401. Coupled with an absence of institutional collaboration,
this has resulted in damaging activities, such as new constructions and quarries
on the perimeters of some sites. According to Özgüner (2015:312),
“archaeological landscapes are not deemed worthy of preservation” due to the
continued prevalence of “the object-oriented archaeological research of the
19th century and early 20th centuries”. In fact, this problem is endemic to
cultural heritage in Turkey as a whole, as MoCT has failed to incorporate the
term ‘cultural landscape’ into its legislation, despite its ratification of
international conservation policies including the European Landscape
Convention. Moreover, recent legislative changes have split responsibilities
between different authorities for natural and cultural properties (Özgönül
2014), which has exacerbated this confined approach into a more fragmented
one that actively discourages and denounces holistic conservation of cultural
heritage.
As can be observed from the legislative conditions, as well as the respondents’
comments, there has been no particular emphasis from MoCT regarding
community-related projects. While MoCT officials, on various occasions,
invited directors to create opportunities to connect local inhabitants with
archaeological sites, such as festivals, conferences, promotional activities, this
has not been a primary area of concern.
401 MoCT’s recent interventions at Eflatunpınarı, Konya, which left the Hittite spring
completely cut-off from its landscape, is just one example where this understanding manifests
itself quite dramatically.
389
The government has in fact been taking regressive steps since 2011 to re-
centralize its powers and restrict public participation in heritage conservation
(Kamacı 2014:18). MoCT’s latest regulation in 2016, however, introduced for
the first time an article on community education (Article 9ee) which requires
excavation directors to hold at least one event per season with local
communities to “raise awareness of cultural heritage conservation” to be
carried out under the coordination of the related provincial culture and tourism
directorates and in the knowledge of (and with the approval of) related museum
directorates and representatives of MoCT. The path to this change can be
traced to the ERM of 2015, when the Vice Assistant Director General of
Cultural Assets and Museums stated:
We invite you to collaborate and share your information with local
institutions, students, and wider audiences, and to organise activities,
invite them to your sites so as to encourage ownership and raise
intellectual new generations.
The implications of this new stipulation are manifold: firstly, MoCT
recognizes the significance of awareness-raising activities in fostering heritage
conservation, and secondly, it gives archaeological projects a role and
responsibility in social development, both of which can be considered to be
progressive steps for providing cultural heritage conservation. At another level,
the involvement of more archaeological teams in awareness-raising activities
will no doubt encourage further interaction with local communities, as well as
aid in the co-design of new approaches in information sharing. It may lead to
a considerable increase in the number of community-related activities, and
more importantly –unlike the present situation– these may be more readily
shared during the ERMs, and therefore better represented.
A more ominous result, on the other hand, may be the state-control of the
medium, content and duration of such education programmes, whereas
previously teams were free in designing and creating them without the need
390
for official consent. In other words, the relationship between the archaeological
teams and local communities, and possibly the forms of engagement, may now
be regulated402, pertinent to which is the possible monitoring of perceptions of
cultural heritage.
To sum up, what these issues demonstrate is that MoCT’s recent focus on
conservation has manifested itself on the ground as an emphasis on extensive
architectural interventions and expectation that they be finished quickly, which
are in conflict with international conservation guidelines, as well as national
regulations. The assessment process and the main problems highlighted by
MoCT concerning archaeological excavations, demonstrate once again that the
prevalent concerns rest primarily on architectural interventions, site security,
and establishment of long-term projects. It begs the question, therefore, if
MoCT’s main aim where it concerns archaeological sites is to provide and
ensure their conservation, why is there an assessment process that focuses
solely on conservation projects carried out by archaeological teams.
When viewed as an ensemble, these give significant indications that MoCT’s
understanding of conservation of archaeological sites is selective, confined and
opportunistic, that not only deflects from the significance of conservation of
archaeological sites but also precipitates the perception that MoCT’s focus is
on obtaining economic benefit from conservation work. As a result, it is
difficult to assert that aspects of the current meaning of heritage conservation,
in particular those that involve intangible aspects, landscapes, participatory
processes, holistic planning etc., share a similar level of priority for MoCT.
402 There is evidence of restrictions that pre-date the new directive. Hodder (pers. comm. 2015)
mentioned that following Çatalhöyük’s WHS designation, the archaeological team’s
connection with the villages was hindered, resulting in difficulties concerning scientific studies
regarding local communities. See also Curtis & Biehl (2015, April).
391
4.2.5.2 Attitudes towards foreign-run archaeological presence
Throughout the late Ottoman period, and since the establishment of the
Republic, public perception of foreign archaeologists and archaeological
institutions in Turkey has been tainted by foreign misconduct, particularly in
the export of antiquities but also because of archaeologists’ employment within
intelligence agencies during the world wars403. These resulted in their
identification as “potential looters” (Goode 2004:49) or “as spies” (Luke &
Kersel 2013:33). Their close relationship with diplomats and embassies during
the Ottoman period also contributed to suspicions as to whether ulterior
motives were in place404 (Goode 2007:37). This common perception, fortified
and kept alive through incidents such as the “Dorak Affair” (Pearson & Connor
1967), has fermented a continuing distrust towards foreign archaeologists
(Özdoğan 1998:116, 2011:163).
The respondents’ comments concerning issues impacting conservation
practices highlight the significance of recent regulatory changes and the
general political climate pertaining to foreign-run archaeological projects. As
discussed in the section above, these are largely the result of MoCT’s limited
perception of archaeological sites as economic assets, as well as its narrow
understanding of conservation. Recent developments also demonstrate the
pervading sense of nationalistic sentiment in MoCT’s conduct with foreign
researchers working in Turkey, which has become increasingly more evident.
The use of archaeological permits as political leverage, formation of the
co/assistant-directorship positions, and emphasis on Turkish publications can
403 Their knowledge and experience of local languages, people and landscape (Goode 2007:26–
27) made them ideal for intelligence services during war efforts. Some worked for foreign
intelligence agencies before, during or after their work in Turkey, such as H. C. Butler, who
excavated Sardis, T.E. Lawrence, who worked at Karkemish and contributed to the British
War Office during World War I (Yegül 2010:65–66), and W. Lamb, who excavated at Kusura
in the 1930s (Gill 2004:245).
404 This is directly related with the prohibition of archaeological activities of persons associated
with diplomatic missions –put into effect with the Law:1710 in 1973 and has been included in
subsequent regulations.
392
be considered as indicators of MoCT’s assertion of ownership and authority
on cultural heritage and knowledge production processes.
Repatriation claims and foreign-run archaeological projects
Turkey’s repatriation claims have been linked with the issuing of permits to
foreign-run archaeological projects ever since the late Ottoman and early
Republican periods. Permits, particularly during the time of Osman Hamdi
Bey, were a powerful part of the “centralised control over the whole domain
of antiquities” (Eldem 2004:135). Permits could be issued as part of a
‘favourable exchange’ to obtain political and infrastructural support from
foreign countries405 (Rutland 2014:50). They were also heavily influenced by
the political relationships with individual countries. For example, at a time
when tensions were running high with the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the
early 20th century, the permit of the Austrian team working at Ephesos was
cancelled, and only renewed when an agreement was reached concerning the
return of some of the artefacts taken during earlier seasons (Szemethy
2011:362).
The use of permits especially for repatriation purposes dates mainly to the early
years of the Turkish Republic. It was primarily the “Sardis Affair” that
embroiled permit processes with Turkey’s repatriation efforts (Yegül
2010:92). At the centre of this major dispute between the US and Turkey were
the artefacts discovered by Butler in 1910-14, which had remained stored at
the site but were transported to the US on separate occasions in 1921-22 before
the Turkish liberation of Izmir in 1922. When the Metropolitan Museum of Art
proved to be reluctant to return the artefacts, the Turkish authorities stalled the
permit process and announced that they would not let American archaeologists
405 In fact, the issuing of permits could depend on a variety of factors including networking,
relationships, giving favours, and obtaining political advantage. Similar examples can be
drawn from antiquities departments run by occupying forces in the Middle East during the
early 20th century (Magee 2012:82).
393
carry out research unless the artefacts were returned. It was only after an
agreement was made that “all materials, except the heaviest” (Goode 2007:39)
would be sent back to Turkey that normality returned406.
A more recent example dates to 1970, precisely at the time when the UNESCO
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,
Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was being debated in
Paris. Turkey, along with other source-countries in Europe and south America,
was fighting to get this treaty enacted to stop illicit trafficking, but USA and
Britain were mainly against the restrictions407. In a move to ensure American
support, a Turkish official stated that “either America does something tough to
stop this racket, or a lot of your classical archaeologists are going to have to
develop an interest in early Navaho culture” (Friendly Jr. 1970, Nov 03). The
Minister of Education also put pressure on American archaeologists, stating
that those who were not helpful would not be able to excavate in Turkey. The
declaration of the Convention only a few days later must have calmed the
waters down.
MoC’s failed attempts since 1968 to retrieve the Sion Treasure from
Dumbarton Oaks Museum at Harvard University408 is another incident where
permits were used as a negotiating ploy. In 1981, the-then Minister of Culture
406 It is interesting to note that Butler himself considered repatriation as a means of establishing
a good working relationship between Turkish authorities and American institutions (Goode
2007:36).
407 Countries that benefit from artefacts obtained from source countries can be reluctant to
impose restrictions. Interestingly, one of the heated debates during the experts meetings that
resulted in the 1992 Valletta Convention appears to have been on the prohition of illicit
traficking of artefacts, for which Turkey, along with Italy, Greece and Cyprus pressed for
strong wording, which was refused by the British, Dutch and Swiss representatives, whose
governments, Willems (2007:61) notes, had “important centres for the international trade in
art and antiquities”. Turkey was one of the earliest countries to ratify the Malta Convention
(ratified in 1999, it went into force in 2000) whereas some other European countries ratified it
considerably later.
408 Discovered in the Kumluca district of Antalya in the early 1960s, the treasure was acquired
by Dumbarton Oaks in 1966 from private collector who purchased it from a questionable
source.
394
Cihat Baban, speaking at the annual ERM, stated that unless museums returned
‘stolen items’ to Turkey, archaeological permits of foreign institutes would be
“reconsidered” (Howe 1981). Although subsequent negotiations have been
unable to resolve matters, and the Sion Treasure remains at Dumbarton Oaks,
the issue occasionally resurfaces.
Over the years, MoC/MoCT also expressed on various occasions that it
expected foreign archaeologists to actively support Turkey in its repatriation
requests. The ERMs provide ideal environments to collectively address foreign
archaeologists409. In the 5th ERM in 1983, Nurettin Yardımcı, Director-General
of Antiquities and Museums, again using the Sion Treasure as one of the
examples, called for foreign researchers to show their solidarity with and speak
on behalf of Turkey’s requests in their own countries (Yardımcı 1984:10).
More recently, Murat Süslü, the-then director general of Cultural Assets and
Museums, in his opening speech of the 34th ERM in 2012, commended the
‘good intentions’ through which the Hattusha sphinx had been returned the
year before and urged directors to publicly announce their solidarity with
MoCT and show their support for repatriation. Similarly, the following year,
Özgür Özarslan, the Undersecretary who spoke on behalf of MoCT during the
35th ERM in 2013, reiterated this call, and referred to an “unjust international
campaign against Turkey” and similarly asked for support of Turkish and
foreign academics. MoCT’s position with regards to foreign archaeologists and
repatriation efforts is probably best summed up, however, by the Director-
General of Monuments and Museums Alpay Pasinli’s call to foreign
archaeologists during the 23rd ERM in 2001: “as our ambassadors”, who “we”
409 Foreign directors have played significant roles in the repatriation of artefacts. Engin Özgen,
the former Director-General, noted the contributions of Machteld Mellink, Crawford
Greenewalt Jr. and R.R.R. Smith in the repatriation of the Lydian Hoard (Ateşoğulları
2002:162). A more recent example concerns the “Troy Gold” exhibited at the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) of the University of Pennsylvania (Rose pers.
comm. 2015). The artefacts were returned to Turkey in 2012 as an indefinite loan (Velioglu,
Bandle & Renold 2013:5).
395
expect to “support us and put effort into this cause in their countries” (Pasinli
2002:V).
These examples demonstrate the use of permits as a reflex action when all else
fails, as ammunition against the reluctance of various foreign institutions or
their denial or outright dismissal of Turkey’s repatriation claims. They also
show the persistent link made between repatriation and foreign archaeologists
working in Turkey, despite there being no direct connections410. As such, the
most recent repatriation claims are yet another recurring chapter411 in the
history of the foreign archaeological presence in Turkey.
Having said this, the permit cancellations that took place recently differentiate
it from earlier episodes. MoCT refutes the suggestion the repatriation efforts
in the early 2010s were linked with permit cancellations (TC Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlığı 2011; T24 2011), stating that cancellation decisions were based on
visible efforts of teams. Melik Ayaz, the Director of Excavations at MoCT,
speaking at the 34th ERM in 2012 reiterated this:
There are various superficial comments that MoCT has lashed out and
cancelled permits. There is a process that leads to a cancellation: we
initially warn excavations with inadequate teams and financial
resources, and if, after years of work at the site nothing has been
achieved and if we do not get a response, then we cancel their permits.
These are neither political nor random decisions.
410 This connection is especially pertinent to news articles on Turkey’s repatriation efforts as
they usually include information on existing foreign-run archaeological excavations, implying
they could be culpable of the same crime –claims that Eldem states are purposely made
(Chatzoudis 2012).
411 The reason that repatriation becomes a major topic from time to time may have to do with
a number of factors. It may relate to personal interests –for example Özgüner (2015:127)
argued that Günay’s personal interests in repatriation played a role in defining MoCTs policies
at the time. It may be a reflection of the changing socio-political agenda, such as Turkey’s goal
to “assert itself in the Middle East” (Bilefsky 2012, Oct 01), or reassuring rising nationalist
tendencies by employing a populist and xenophobic agenda (Eldem 2013:22–23).
396
A similar comment was made by an MoCT official interviewed as part of this
research, who noted that several Turkish-run excavations had also been
cancelled, that there is no “Turkification” policy, and that cancellations due to
lack of conservation work merely coincided with MoCT’s increased focus on
repatriation. The historical background and recent events, however, shed doubt
on the reasons the cancellations took place, calling into question the
transparency of assessment processes.
The recent repatriation efforts impacted mostly German-run projects during
the investigated period, with issues ranging from threats to cancel or delay
permits to refusals to open new trenches. Directors of other countries, however,
were similarly concerned. One director interviewed in 2012 voiced his
thoughts regarding this flux of events:
One should arrive at a general consensus on foreign-run excavations. A
general policy is needed so that you know what to expect, how much
funding you need to raise etc. MoCT brings forth old problems and
takes them out on current teams.
Whether it is the archaeologists, the site or the object taken ‘hostage’ during
Turkey’s repatriation efforts (Luke & Kersel 2013:62; Kasiske 2013), given
the current political climate, expecting a short- or even mid-term solution to
the politicization of permits would appear to be optimistic. Recent permit
cancellations of Austrian-run projects412 are a case in point, particularly as they
412 On August 31st 2016, Austrian archaeological projects in Turkey, including Ephesos, one
of the longest-running excavations, fell victim to Turkey’s recent political entanglement with
the Austrian government, by having its permits revoked mid-season (Sekiz Eylül Gazetesi
2016; Altuğ 2016; Arkeologlar Derneği 2016). The decision was met with criticism, with calls
for the State to stop using culture and science as instruments of political leverage (Arkeologlar
Derneği İstanbul Şubesi 2016; Diken 2016; Ertuğrul 2016). Ladstaetter, the director of
Ephesus excavations, expressed her sadness at the decision, and her dismay at the way Austrian
politicians had fuelled the crisis (Hirtenfelder 2016). Suspicions that this may in fact be a
permanent decision were confirmed when two months later, the Minister of Culture and
Tourism Nabi Avcı declared that they were in talks with a Turkish university to take over and
that Turkish archaeologists had the “knowledge, experience and economical power” to take on
397
recall the example given earlier in this section, where “the impact” of political
tensions between the two empires “on Austrian archaeological activities was
visible immediately” (Szemethy 2011:362). The use of permits to assert power
only demonstrates a short-sightedness, as this instability will work to the
detriment of archaeological sites impacted by such decisions, particularly in
view of discontinued conservation projects, livelihood for the local workforce,
loss of sponsors and conservation teams, as well as the archaeological research
itself413.
The term ‘foreign-run archaeological excavation’
‘Foreign-run archaeological excavation’ is a distinctive term in Turkish
legislation414 and in practice MoCT appears to consider the projects of one
country as one entity. The majority of foreign-run excavations, however,
consist of international teams made up of many archaeologists and specialists
from various countries –a fact that was emphasized by some of the respondents
interviewed. Öztürk (2014:235), for example, notes that the work at
Aphrodisias “cannot be attributed to any single foreign country as scientists
and crew of several nationalities have been carrying out noteworthy projects
on site”.
Pirson (2015:42) states that the nationality of the project leader is
inconsequential because archaeology is a science. In view of the growing
internationalization of archaeological excavations in Turkey, he suggests
(Pirson 2013) transforming the projects into international research centres with
this task, stating that Austria had not taken steps to alleviate the problem (Erbil 2016), thereby
acknowledging the actual reason behind the permit cancellation.
413 Such policies have detrimental effect on archaeological research itself. Şerifoğlu & Selvi
(2015:127) state that foreign teams are moving their projects to neighbouring countries.
414 Koparal (2015:99) noted that this distinction, which creates the ‘other’, is one of several
‘marginalisations’ in archaeological practice in Turkey, which factored in Turkish
archaeologists’ lack of united response to permit cancellations and lack of debate concerning
the ethics of taking over their projects.
398
clearly defined research programmes415, but notes that the Turkish legislations’
recognition of the excavator as the sole responsible person is a hindrance in
this direction. Eldem (Chatzoudis 2012), on the other hand, notes that the issue
lies both in the legislative conditions in Turkey and in the organisational
structures of some of the foreign institutions, which in various cases are
subordinate to national ministries of foreign affairs –as is the case with DAI
and IFEA.
This highlights one of the central issues concerning foreign archaeological
presence: their representational place for their governments and their role in
cultural diplomacy. This is particularly pertinent for state-funded foreign
institutes, which as possible “symbols of cultural influence and tools of ‘soft
diplomacy’” (Braemer 2012:40) can be expected to serve national interests
(Jansen 2008:152). In the case of the US, for example, Luke and Kersel
(2013:13) note that:
Whether archaeologists realize it or not, they are very much embedded
agents of U.S. soft power and unofficial, long-term cultural diplomats:
their networks and relationships are extremely useful in creating
favorable impressions abroad and in deepening an understanding of
what Americans and America represent.
They also point out that for the US government, in the post-World War II
climate, “foreign centres represented an opportunity for public diplomacy
abroad, particularly under the public guise of independent institutions,” which
led to the strengthening of existing centres abroad and the establishment of
research centres in the Middle East, including Turkey (Luke & Kersel
2013:29–30).
415 This suggestion recalls the origins of DAI, which, in the growing nationalist climate of the
period, lost its international character (Bittel 1980:272).
399
Similarly, Jansen (2008:152) states that DAI’s work “was always conceived as
part of German foreign cultural policy and financed primarily from the budget
of the Foreign Ministry”. Accordingly, DAI’s projects worldwide “not only
serve scholarly interests but [aim] to contribute to the foreign cultural and
educational policy of Germany” (Schücker 2012:169) and are “showcases of
the DAI and of German archaeology” (Pirson 2009b:91).
In many ways, therefore, foreign institutions, especially those that are state
funded416, and their projects in Turkey, have major importance for the related
country as emblems of national prestige and influence. Given these
circumstances, although archaeological projects are becoming more
international in nature, it is difficult to conceive how the term ‘foreign-run
archaeological excavation’ can be set aside or how excavations can be
recognized as international institutions.
Co/assistant-directorship
Parallel to the events concerning Turkey’s repatriation efforts and their impacts
on foreign-run archaeological research, the instigation of Turkish co-
directorships (later changed to assistant-directorships) was another decision
that altered the running of foreign projects. MoCT stated on various occasions
that this regulation was for monitoring purposes and most importantly to
educate Turkish archaeologists –the latter was reiterated by a respondent of
MoCT’s Excavations Unit, interviewed as part of this research in 2016, who
stated that the position of co-directorship/assistant directorship was born out
of a necessity, and that one of the main considerations was to train Turkish
archaeologists.
416 For example, in the 19th century, French and German archaeological explorations were
mainly state-funded where they considered this to be the duty of the state, whereas in Britain
and the US, this was not the case (Díaz-Andreu 2007:16).
400
Although Turkish projects are similarly required to appoint assistant-directors,
the fact remains that, strictly speaking, this requirement, did not respond to an
acknowledged problem by the archaeological community (Özgüner 2015:107).
Rather, it has been argued, this move was associated with a desire to control
knowledge production processes (Koparal:99; Atakuman 2010:123; Duru
2013:xxi; Özgüner 2015:108–109). Atakuman (2010:123), for example,
argued that one of the reasons for this newly created position may have been
to curb potentially damaging narratives written by archaeological teams –an
engrained phobia related with foreign archaeological research in Turkey
according to Özdoğan (2006a:16).
Luke&Kersel (2013:58), on the other hand, note that co/assistant directorships
are “increasingly common practice” and mainly aim to establish “a collegial
relationship” between foreigners and locals. They argue that such an approach
“embodies the essence of successful cultural diplomacy: increased people-to-
people, long-term relationships, and the exchange of knowledge”. If MoCT’s
view is of collaboration and training, clear justifications of this position are
required that also sees this position beyond the confines of facilitating
bureaucratic relationships.
Emphasis on Turkish publications
MoCT has been urging archaeological teams for a number of years to focus on
making publications. At the 37th ERM in 2015, the Vice Assistant Director
General of Cultural Assets and Museums noted:
We see [archaeological practice] turning into publications of very good
quality; however, there are still no serious publications in some of the
most ambitious excavations. I would like to remind this to those of you
with limited or no publications [to take this on] in order to provide for
those who will inherit this heritage.
401
This remark, in particular, stresses the benefit of disseminating knowledge to
the source country for future generations who will look after these sites. This
emphasis on publications should also be viewed in conjunction with the
recognition of “archaeological excavations as sources of information”, as
noted by Ertuğrul Günay, the former Minister of Culture and Tourism (TC
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı 2011). Maintaining this emphasis, another facet of
MoCT’s assertion of ownership and authority concerns the prominence given
to Turkish publications, which, since the circulars of 2009, all legislative
changes accentuate. In 2012, during the 34th ERM, Ertuğrul Günay, the-then
the Minister of Culture and Tourism, addressed foreign directors:
You will write in Turkish. You will show respect to the country in
which you are excavating. We want Turkish to become a language of
science.
MoCT officials have also been stressing the value they put on Turkish
presentations during the ERMs. This has made an impact, as the number of
foreign directors making Turkish presentations at the ERMs has increased –
from the late 2000s to the early 2010s the number of Turkish presentations by
foreign directors of the 19 sites rose from 9 to 13.
It may be appropriate to note the view of one of the respondents interviewed,
who approved of the emphasis on Turkish publications and highlighted their
significance for the source country:
From the 19th century until the 1980s it was the ancient artefacts that
left Turkey. They can no longer be exported. Now it is the ‘knowledge’
that leaves the country. It is not shared so MoCT asked for Turkish
publications.
Read in conjunction with Turkey’s re-ignited repatriation efforts over the same
period, could this suggest a move towards repatriating knowledge, which
Turkey perhaps feels was not adequately disseminated? While the insistence
402
on the use of Turkish in publications demonstrates nationalist sentiments, the
use of language to claim ownership of knowledge is certainly not peculiar to
Turkey. In her research, Rutland (2014:55–56) highlights the significance of
“knowledge colonisation, language denoted ownership of knowledge” by
giving the example of Garstang’s relations with the German team working at
Hattusha in the early 20th century, and the way in which Germany (in this
particular case) –and in fact other European countries– used language to
appropriate knowledge.
Going back to the comment of the respondent, unless archaeological research
is made accessible through various means, one of which can be the use of local
language, would this mean that knowledge is exported? This is what Rutland
(2014:249) argues, when she states that institutions that do not build a
‘collaborative relationship’ with the institutions and communities of source
countries, “are placing their own stamp of ownership upon internationally
acquired knowledge.” This is especially pertinent in an age in which
knowledge production and knowledge dissemination are industries of their
own (Şahin Güçhan 2003:115).
Interestingly, in one of the many suggestions made during the preliminary draft
discussions preceding the publication of the 1956 UNESCO
Recommendations, the International Council on Monuments advised that,
although special requirements for foreign researchers should not be made by
national authorities, an exception should be made with regards to publications
noting that “the results of the work must be published in the language of the
country where the excavations are carried out,” (UNESCO 1955:16). In the
final 1956 UNESCO Recommendations, however, the relevant article only
notes that “scientific publications dealing with archaeological research and
issued in a language which is not widely used should include a summary”.
In view of this, the significant lack of Turkish translations on the excavation
websites, as demonstrated in the earlier, should be noted. Disseminating
403
information in Turkish can contribute to making archaeological sites and their
conservation more accessible and relevant to a wider range of the population.
This still does not detract, however, from the pervading nationalist conduct
regarding foreign archaeologists. One pertinent example was relayed by one
of the respondents interviewed. Referring to a special event at the site he is
excavating, he explained how an MoCT official, after congratulating him on
his work, told him “Remember that this site belongs to Turkey!”. This remark
is all the more poignant considering the director in question has been working
at this particular site for several decades. The director said he perceived this as
signal that Turkey is capable of looking after its own sites without any foreign
input.
On a final note, it should be stated that the primary issues impacting
conservation practices and conservation of archaeological sites relate to
existing regulatory conditions but mostly to the way these are implemented.
Issues such as the lack of consultation, institutional cooperation, an
architectural emphasis on conservation are some of the more pressing
problems faced, while collusion of repatriation claims with permits remains a
simmering but perhaps temporary problem.
4.3 Catalysts, influences and driving forces: a discussion
As the previous sections have shown, conservation practices have been shaped
by a variety of factors. The changes and differences observed at the selected
sites over the past 35 years reveal a number of possible catalysts, influences
and driving forces, which are discussed under the following headings:
• International guidelines and developments in the field of conservation
• Operational and regulatory context in Turkey
• Financial sources
• Differences in national approaches
• Key individuals
404
4.3.1 International guidelines and developments in the field of
conservation
Changing concepts and theories of conservation reflected in international
guidelines demonstrate a major shift from building-oriented conservation
towards a values-based approach centred on heritage management, landscape
conservation and community involvement. Current definitions of heritage and
conservation derive mainly from the recognition of cultural landscapes (the
European Landscape Convention in 2000) and the “people-centred
perspective” promulgated by the Faro Convention. The latter calls for
everyone’s participation in “the process of identification, study, interpretation,
protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage” (Article 12)
and for “using and exploiting all cultural heritage for high-level political, social
and economic progress” (Holtorf & Fairclough 2013:201). Viewing heritage,
and therefore archaeological sites, as a driver of development (ICOMOS 2011
Paris Declaration) has impacted conservation practices.
The development of conservation practices at the selected sites loosely parallel
this shift with a growing focus on site-scale conservation and considerations
for the wider aspects of heritage conservation such as community engagement
and management planning. The findings of the present research also reflect the
situation elsewhere in the Mediterranean where, as Orbaşlı (2013:242) notes,
there has been a move away from “excavation to protection and conservation
from the 1990s” and then “more recently towards a more holistic approach of
heritage management, community participation, and local development”.
The developments in the field of heritage conservation are exemplified most
prominently at Sagalassos where meticulous research into architectural
conservation, coupled with concern for the impacts of the archaeological
project on the local community, led to a heritage management approach that
views the archaeological excavation as a driver for regional development.
Similarly, at Çatalhöyük, one of the main aims of the project was to contribute
to education, and local development.
405
Examination of conservation standards and principles revealed a strong
tradition of adherence to scientific principles of architectural conservation,
predominantly within the guidelines of the Venice Charter. The prevalence of
its principles in conservation practices is evident especially at sites with
classical remains where anastylosis can be more fully implemented. The
importance it imparted on a scientific approach to conservation is also closely
related with the discontent voiced by some of the respondents regarding
pressures from MoCT to obtain fast results. It should be noted, however, as a
charter with a “continental European character” (Aygen 2015:26) written
mainly with Italian influence (Glendinning 2013:398), it attracted criticisms
for a number of reasons over the years, not least for its Euro-centricity, but
remains one of the most influential documents.
In view of the findings of this research, however, it can be argued that
conservation at the selected sites entails predominantly a building-
oriented/material-based understanding despite the general evolution of
heritage conservation, and indicates a lack of more widespread community
involvement in sustainable conservation.
4.3.2 Operational and regulatory context in Turkey
The past three decades have seen conservation becoming a major focus for
MoC/MoCT with an increasing number of regulations concerning
archaeological excavations. This research revealed two main turning points in
conservation practices in the early 1990s and the late 2000s. It is argued that
MoCT was a significant catalyst in the marked increase in conservation and its
visibility, and was also a defining factor in the scope of work carried out. On
the other hand, accentuated by MoCT’s requests, tourism emerges as a major
driver for conservation interventions.
MoC/MoCT’s interests in conservation gained ground particularly from the
1990s and as the numbers of archaeological excavations and survey projects
began to rise, its monitoring duties increased. MoC/MoCT moved to not only
406
curb the number of permits but also to share the responsibility for conservation,
by introducing legislative changes from the mid-2000s culminating in the early
2010s. This trend more or less correlates to the turning points mentioned
above. Other factors may have contributed to the shift in the practice in the
1990s, particularly the growing international and Mediterranean-wide concern
for the conservation of archaeological sites, which would account for the new
excavations that had conservation present from the start. The shift in the 2010s,
however, can be attributed primarily to MoCT’s greater emphasis on
conservation as there is a considerable increase in architectural conservation,
site presentation and management planning. MoCT’s interpretation of
archaeological conservation is primarily focused on these aspects of
conservation. The scope of conservation work, therefore, is aligned with
MoCT’s focus, as conservation work becomes an aspect of archaeological
excavations that needs to be demonstrated for the continuation of excavations.
It should also be noted, that MoCT’s recent regulations placing more emphasis
on conservation have also catalysed DAI’s focus on cultural heritage
conservation (Pirson 2015:45), which demonstrates the significant role of state
policies.
In contrast, it is argued that community-focused projects are not the result of
MoCT’s recent emphasis on archaeological conservation. They were largely
initiated by the excavation teams themselves. This might also explain the
selective approach in presenting conservation work in the ERM proceedings,
as the directors appear to present only aspects of their work that they consider
to be more relevant to MoCT. Community-focused projects have more to do
with international developments in the field of heritage conservation, and may
also be related with foreign teams wishing to justify their presence –a topic
examined later in this section.
Tourism is considered a significant contributor to economic development, and
cultural heritage is increasingly exploited around the world as a major driver
of tourism. In Turkey, tourism and its relationship to archaeological sites has
407
been recognized since the early years of the Republic417. This trend has become
more noticeable particularly since the merger of the Ministry of Culture with
the Ministry of Tourism in 2003. Since this date, successive governments have
perceived cultural heritage predominantly with respect to economic benefits
associated with tourism. Valorisation of archaeological sites for tourism
purposes is one of the most obvious strategies in this direction. As such,
archaeological sites are viewed mainly as economic assets, which tends to
underlie some of the regulatory frameworks418.
Among other developments in the last decade, such as the privatisation of
supporting services for museum and archaeological sites, and the increase in
funds made available for archaeological excavations, MoCT’s comprehensive
and site-specific requests, focusing on re-erections, re-use of buildings for
tourism purposes, site presentation and management planning, should be read
in this context. It can be said that archaeological teams are both explicitly and
implicitly under pressure to transform sites into ‘tourist destinations’.
Noteworthy examples of how tourism influences the selection of buildings and
conservation methodology can be drawn from Pergamon, Ephesos, and
Hattusha. At Pergamon, the Temple of Trajan was partially re-erected, and a
sculptural decoration at the Red Hall was recently reconstructed. The first
project was directly associated with the MoC’s explicit request for enhanced
site presentation while the second was the result of the underlying implicit
understanding that increased tourism is a welcome outcome of conservation,
417 Tourism’s role in defining priorities for archaeological sites to be conserved was
particularly noted in M.F. Miltner’s (from the OeAI and later director of the excavations at
Ephesos) report in 1933 written for the Monuments Preservation Council Madran (1996:73).
See also the law proposal in 1933 concerning the maintenance and preservation of historic
monuments (Chapter 2) and Radt (2010:175).
418 For example, the regulation concerning site management refers to “raising the value of the
site to international standards...” (Article 5) as one of the aims of site management –the intent
of which is rather questionable but hints at economic potentials of sites –see eds. Madran &
Bozkurt (2008).
408
particularly where it involves architectural interventions. In the latter case,
although other reasons were cited for reconstruction, one of the objectives
rested on their “didactic importance for visitors” in a building whose “original
rich architectural interior visitors had been unable to visualize previously”
(Pirson 2011:252). In this instance, for example, the team appear to have
moved away from Dörpfeld’s conservation concepts for Pergamon.
At Ephesos, on the other hand, tourism has been a major catalyst for
conservation practices for many years, where buildings along the main tourist
routes were the primary focus (Ladstaetter 2016). Tourism, or managing tourist
flow, can influence decisions on where to intervene, especially at sites as
attractive as Ephesos. One specific example concerns the Serapeion, which has
recently become the subject of an anastylosis project owing to the large amount
of remaining original materials but also for its potential to create a diversion
for the large numbers of tourists. In the mid-1990s, the excavation team
previously rejected a funding offer of the OeAI to carry out an anastylosis
project on the grounds that their focus was be on conservation and not large-
scale excavations and anastylosis projects (Krinzinger 2006a:91). On the face
of it, this stance would now appear to have been abandoned due to the needs
of tourism.
At Hattusha, the team has recently reconstructed one of the sphinx’s faces at
the Lion’s Gate. “Enhancing visitor experience” was cited as one of the reasons
for this project (Seeher & Schachner 2014:152). Schachner noted that a
reconstruction should be implemented only under exceptional circumstances
but stated that they would not have pursued this course if tourism had not been
a pressing issue or had the site not been so famous (Schachner 2012:472–473,
2013, November). His argument that Hattusha’s high attraction had a role in
their decision to reconstruct certain architectural remains again demonstrates
that tourism is a major driving force in conservation.
409
Linked to these decisions are the acceptable levels of interventions. The city
wall reconstruction419 at Hattusha, for example, was implemented not only for
experimental archaeology purposes but also had visitors in mind (Seeher
2007b:32). The reconstruction became a landmark and, as might have been
expected, a major tourism symbol for Boğazkale used by both the public and
the private sector420. But, as Schachner notes, this symbol is in fact based on
clay fortification models, and the true image of the walls is not fully known.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, MoCT has asked for the reconstruction of a further
stretch of the city wall and of a temple but the archaeological team does not
wish to engage in these projects, because in their view they would cause ethical
problems (Schachner pers. comm. 2015).
While the motives of MoCT may have been to generate larger income from
archaeological sites and its understanding of conservation may be not all-
encompassing, nonetheless this research demonstrates the positive impacts this
emphasis on conservation has had on archaeological sites in that conservation
has been put firmly on the agenda. It appears that, partly driven by the tourism
goals, MoCT has been a catalyst in some of the conservation work. It is argued
that this most likely accounts for the emergence/visibility of holistic
conservation efforts in publications.
One other possible influence in the direction of conservation practices is the
WHS nomination processes and subsequent designations as they call for
holistic site conservation rather than concentration on individual buildings.
This may have contributed to the relatively new emphasis on site maintenance
419 Given that the international principles set out in the Venice Charter and the ICAHM Charter
generally tend to discourage reconstructions directly on the ancient remains themselves, it is
noteworthy that the World Heritage Committee has not commented on this project.
420 The reconstruction also appears to have divided opinion among archaeologists, as some of
the respondents of this research specifically criticized it. One of the directors, for example,
who was against extensive interventions, emphasized that they were pressured by tourism
companies to reconstruct, and citing the city walls noted that non-scientific factors were at
play in some of the decisions made.
410
at Ephesos. For example, ICOMOS, in its assessment of Ephesos’ nomination
file, requested that the management plan be revised to include “a clearly
articulated Conservation Master Plan which prioritises conservation actions
focusing on stabilisation and maintenance rather than anastylosis in the context
of visitor management and overall use of the site” (Ministry of Culture and
Tourism 2013:416).
4.3.3 Financial sources
This research revealed that opportunities for funding for conservation have
broadened in the last three decades but that the majority of support was through
non-profit organisations and private sponsors who mostly funded architectural
conservation. This demonstrates a selective approach. One of the issues
concerning lack of funding for conservation was revealed to be that site
conservation was not considered to be part of archaeological practice, which
limited the financial support of foreign public bodies. Therefore, it can be said
that the funding criteria of organisations play a significant role in the way
archaeological sites are conserved.
The visibility and demonstrability (i.e. publicity) of architectural projects are
most likely what attract private sponsors. For the excavation teams themselves,
working with “private sponsorship requires special treatment and marketing
strategies not only in the planning and realization process, but also in the
visibility of sponsors and publicity of the projects.” (Ladstaetter & Zabrana
2014:8). This recalls Atalay et. al.’s (2010:15) ‘circle of interaction’ between
sponsors, media and archaeology:
The sponsors remain involved over the long term because they gain
publicity. The media provide the publicity only if the archaeology
remains of interest to a wide audience. The archaeology has to provide
that interest but can only continue if the sponsors stay involved. This
circle of interaction for funding depends on conservation and exhibition
of the site.
411
Corporate social responsibility may be another factor for private support;
however, several issues arise out of this involvement. It is mostly the case that
companies, particularly large corporations, tend to support the better-known
sites, such as Ephesos and Çatalhöyük, rather than those that are more remote
and therefore have less visibility. The formation of dedicated foundations
backed by private companies, such as the Ephesus Foundation (Turkey), is a
case in point421. Notwithstanding the opportunities for conservation,
presentation and management that such site-specific organisations may create,
as was suggested by Shoup (2008:264), the problem remains that they mainly
support better-known sites.
Other issues are the preferences of non-profit organisations and possible
impacts of private sponsors may have on the types of projects or
interventions422. For example, WMF’s presence in Turkey demonstrates an
interest in mostly classical sites and minority heritage. Between 2007 and
2015, The J.M. Kaplan Fund provided grants to classical sites and
monuments423 (Lustbader pers. comm. 2015) and their support enabled a
significant number of architectural conservation projects to be implemented.
The Fund usually contacted the directors of sites it wished to support and
invited them to submit applications upon review of the scope of work and other
criteria (Lustbader pers. comm. 2015). In terms of financing conservation
projects at archaeological sites in Turkey, it mainly supported projects at
foreign-run excavations.
421 This approach has its critics. A Turkish archaeologist, director of a long-standing
excavation, had expressed his remorse soon after the Ephesus Foundation was formed, at the
way large companies wished to fund ‘already famous’, and therefore, well-funded sites rather
than extend their contribution to other, less well-known sites.
422 For a debate on the issue of financial powers and their impacts on archaeological sites, see
(Hamilakis 1999) and (Hodder 1999a).
423 This is evident from the projects they supported, eight of which concern classical
monuments.
412
The wider implications of such selective approaches can also be related to the
agenda of national organisations funding conservation work outside their own
countries, as emphasized by Luke (2013:366) in her article on the U.S.
Ambassador’s Fund and TIKA’s approaches to heritage programs as “…
increasingly inseparable from the historical legacies and contemporary
ambitions of their sponsors.”424.
In the case of Ephesos the involvement in the 1970s of the Society of the
Friends of Ephesos, supported by private companies, introduced a second
major financial source for the excavations, which until then had benefited only
from Austrian public funds (Bammer 2010:45). In the 1970s-80s, the company
Kallinger-Prskawetz’s continued presence as a sponsor appears to have been
instrumental in the implementation of the most significant projects, including
the Celsus Library and Hadrian’s Gate (Bammer 2010:49–50, 53). On at least
one occasion its influence extended to the choice of materials when in the
1980s the timber design of the first shelter over the Terrace House 2 was altered
to concrete as per Kallinger-Prskawetz’s request (Bammer 2010:49).
Moreover, Öztürk (2014:235) notes that “occasionally expectations of the
sponsors and the time pressure they inflict lead to contradictory situations,”
highlighting some potentially harmful situations.
Another issue concerns funding for community-focused projects. Examination
of funding sources revealed that they were mainly supported by non-profit
organisations and international donors with relatively less support from private
companies and foreign public bodies. The position of foreign institutional
bodies has been previously highlighted by Hodder (2009:195) who noted that
“many governmental, research, and scientific foundations remain uninterested
in outreach issues” and questioned why they “do not make consideration of
local impact a requirement for funding”. This also recalls the comments of the
424 This was in the context of TIKA’s support of Islamic heritage in the Balkans while
American and European agencies largely focus on Armenian and Jewish heritage in Turkey.
413
respondents vis-à-vis certain foreign public bodies’ stance regarding
architectural conservation, which these bodies associated with tourism, and
was therefore beneficial for the source country and its own responsibility.
Fundamental problems would appear to be that neither community engagement
nor site conservation are considered to be integral parts of archaeological
research, which subsequently hinders holistic conservation efforts. This may
also explain, as respondents referred to, the lack of funding specifically for
conservation. The Kaplan Fund, for example, identified that there was already
financial support readily available for publication and research in archaeology
but a funding gap for conservation (Lustbader pers. comm. 2015).
Lastly, several questions arise. For example, if most of the funding for
conservation work at foreign-run archaeological excavations is coming from
foreign bodies, private companies and individuals, what are the implications
for the sustainability of archaeological conservation and, more importantly, the
sites themselves? The continuous support of private sponsors depends largely
on regional and global economic climates (Ladstaetter & Zabrana 2014:8), so
this presents a potential problem. The review that took place at the Kaplan
Fund in 2015, for example, meant no new projects were funded in 2016 (J.M.
Kaplan Fund 2016). As a significant contributor to architectural conservation
work, its continued presence is of critical importance for many sites wishing
to implement such projects.
4.3.4 Differences in national approaches
This research identified some distinctions, albeit with a certain degree of
fluidity, in the scope of conservation work between Central-European-run
excavations (Austrian, German and Italian), which on the whole lacked
community-oriented projects425 that otherwise were more apparent at Anglo-
American-run excavations, as well as at the Belgian-run Sagalassos and at the
425 This is taking into consideration projects and activities initiated by the teams themselves.
414
Japanese-run Kaman-Kalehöyük. The main objectives of foreign institutions
and various national archaeological standards provided some clues as to the
possible factors impacting the scope of archaeological conservation in relation
to community engagement. The ethical standards in Britain and US, which
have come to recognize public engagement as part of archaeological practice,
and the recent shift in focus of various foreign institutes was also apparent,
mainly at the BIAA with its particular emphasis on heritage management and
public engagement, but to some extent at DAI and ARIT, which have recently
been placing emphasis on cultural heritage conservation. Also of significant
importance are the archaeological heritage management and funding structures
of each country, which directly impact archaeological practices426.
The stronger building-oriented emphasis at certain excavations, again with a
level of fluidity, was also noted particularly at Austrian, German, and Italian-
run projects. In the case of Germany, for example, Bittel (1980:274–275)
remarks that emphasis on the study of architecture has been engrained in
German archaeological research. Particularly the conservation work at the
Acropolis in Athens, whose guidelines were penned by the German architect
Leo von Klenze427 and centred on anastylosis and reconstruction, impacted the
way classical archaeological sites were treated428. The British approach to
conservation of ruins, on the other hand, tends to be “minimalist” (Fowler
2006:7) in that conservation is largely conceived as consolidation with a
disregard for reconstruction (Jokilehto 1999:311).
426 See Bernbeck & Pollock (2008); Demoule (2009).
427 Architectural conservation principles for classical buildings were developed by the German
architect Leo von Klenze for the Acropolis in the 1830s. His principles, based on some of the
accepted concepts of the time, involved the attention given to the use of original materials, and
distinction of new from the old, which presage the Athens Charter 1931, and maintaining the
picturesqueness of sites (Jokilehto 1999:93; Stubbs 2009:229).
428 Dörpfeld’s conservation techniques at Pergamon in the early 20th century conform to von
Klenze’s principles in distinguishing new materials and not disturbing the setting (Bachmann
2014b:83–84).
415
In fact, it is not only about the country leading the excavation –the persons
actually carrying out the conservation work are important too. Öztürk (2014:
230) notes that there has been an Austrian tradition of architectural
conservation at Aphrodisias ever since the involvement of Hueber who had
previously carried out the anastylosis of the Celsus Library at Ephesos. This
continued with the anastylosis of the Tetrapylon, spearheaded by architects G.
Paul and T. Kaefer, both of whom have been working at the site for almost 30
years. Could the lack of community engagement in an American-run
archaeological excavation be associated with the Austrian tradition in
conservation?
These deep-rooted national traditions and in-built philosophies of conserving
and managing archaeological sites have influenced the way the sites have been
shaped. It would be an interesting exercise in counter-factual history to
contemplate how Hattusha might have looked today, if John Garstang’s permit
had not been revoked in the early 20th century in favour of the Germans, and a
British team had excavated and conserved the site429. How differently would
Yerkapı, Chamber 2 and the city walls, for example, have been treated?
Pertinent here, is a British tourist’s 430 comment, who wrongly assumed the
reconstruction of the walls to have been carried out by the Turks: “Despite the
reconstruction on the original walls of three towers (how did the Germans
allow it) the rest of the site is as archaeology intended it. Wind swept, steep
and magnificent”.
The representational aspects of foreign institutes and their projects, and their
continued significance for the countries involved was mentioned previously.
Against this background, it can be argued that not only archaeological research
429 See Rutland (2014); Greaves (2015).
430 OccidentalTourist46 Devizes, United Kingdom, comment on Trip Advisor in September
2015 (https://www.tripadvisor.co.za/ShowUserReviews-g815363-d324410-r314398614-
Hattusha-Bogazkale_Corum_Province.html#REVIEWS) (accessed 19.11.2015).
416
but conservation efforts form part of this national representation, and can play
a role in defining the scope of conservation work. For example, Italy places
great significance on its expertise in conservation and “the Italian ministries of
foreign affairs and for cultural heritage have been actively using this valuable
national intellectual asset abroad and including cultural heritage efforts as a
major component of Italian foreign policy” (Stubbs & Makaš 2011:35).
Architectural conservation projects in particular can present ideal opportunities
visually to demonstrate expertise, technique, and knowledge. As noted earlier,
the reconstruction of the Gymnasium at Sardis set an example for subsequent
projects, particularly for Ephesos, Aphrodisias and Pergamon. Luke&Kersel
(2013:35), note that one of the main catalysts for the large-scale projects at
Sardis was the intention “to build a solid, public face of the United States
abroad and demonstrate the benefits of collaboration”. Behind these projects
was Hanfmann, the director of the excavations, who wished to accomplish this
by “not a chaos of unintelligible ruins but an image of what an ancient city was
like –a site attractive in appearance and intelligible to the public” and thereby
to create a tourist destination (Luke & Kersel 2013:35). This is a clear example
of the use of architectural conservation projects for representational purposes.
Similarly, referring to its “restoration and reconstruction projects” in the
Mediterranean and the Middle East, DAI’s booklet emphasizes the projects’
contribution to its renown, suggesting that they carry with them the
responsibility of representation (DAI 2011:2):
… they also represent an important part of foreign cultural policy
because they contribute directly to the preservation of cultural heritage
in the respective host country and, moreover, to the development of
tourism. In this respect, they further the overall reputation of the DAI
to a higher degree than actual research work.
The representational role of architectural projects may also explain the
“archaeologically competitive environment” that resulted in the anastylosis
417
projects in the 1980s (Öztürk 2014:234) and indicates that these were viewed
as showcases of expertise due to their strong visual impact. Taking forward
Öztürk’s argument, it could be said that, while expert mobility and
collaboration between different sites occurred, such as Hueber’s contributions
to Aphrodisias, Ephesos and Pergamon, the competitive nature of
archaeological explorations, especially prevalent at the end of the Ottoman
period, later reflected itself on conservation practices, especially in the form of
anastylosis and reconstruction projects as more demonstrable techniques rather
than simple repairs, consolidation, or reburial431.
Another issue that can be discussed in this context relates to the noticeable
increase in community-focused projects in the early 2010s. Considering that
foreign institutions “constantly have to demonstrate their value to the local
research community and their host nation” in order to continue their presence
in other countries (Lane 2005:15), could this increase be viewed in the same
light? Could these proactive engagements suggest at efforts of trying to make
their projects more relevant to the local community as well as local authorities?
4.3.5 Key individuals
Certain individuals can have significant impacts on the direction of
conservation. A change of the excavation director, for example, with his/her
individual positions, preferences and interests can lead to a change of course.
The tenures of Smith at Aphrodisias and Krinzinger at Ephesos coincided with
significantly reduced excavations and focus on site conservation. The
emphasis in this section, however, is the key role of conservation experts. This
research revealed that conservation specialists were engaged in projects early
on, and that at some sites, such as Gordion, Troy, and Çatalhöyük, foreign
431 Whether the resulting work reflects the standards of the foreign country is another matter,
and not the focus of this research; however, Finlayson’s (2005b:23) comment that “driven by
the needs of cultural diplomacy, some projects work to standards and objectives that would
not match practice in the UK” suggests that some inferior work might result.
418
experts were invited to guide principles and priorities. Moreover, one of the
most pressing issues concerning conservation teams was revealed to be their
permanence and continuity. In this respect key individuals and changes in
conservation teams can have significant influences on conservation practices.
Conservation professionals, particularly those who were defined as ‘standards-
setters’, can be the driving forces for the way conservation is practiced at
certain sites. For example, the development of conservation principles at Troy
depended fundamentally on the advice of two experts in the early 1990s, which
called for a gesammtkonzept for the site –an approach also seen at Didyma.
Similarly, changes in teams may lead to changes in methodologies and
techniques, such as at Gordion where Goodman and Matero preferred different
conservation techniques. Differences in individual approaches can be
especially pertinent in architectural conservation practices: a significant
example is the variety of interventions at Ephesos owing to the different
perspectives of individual architects. Öztürk (2014:237) calls this the ‘architect
factor’. In reference to the methodological differences between the anastylosis
projects of the Tetrapylon and the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias she states:
Despite all the legal and theoretical regulations and necessities, the
anastyloses in Aphrodisias prove that the architect devising the plan
contributes his ‘interpretation and style’ to the intervention and that the
architect factor is very influential in restoration practices.
Advisory committees can also be influential in the decision-making processes.
The Temple of Trajan at Pergamon was partially re-erected following a long
project that was finalised in the mid-1990s. The original project had involved
more of a total rebuilding; however, the building commission set up by DAI
for this project in 1976 considerably changed this plan in favour of a partial
intervention (DAI n.d.d; Schmidt 1993:174).
419
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
As a significant component of archaeological research in Turkey, conservation
work carried out at foreign-run archaeological excavations had hitherto not
been examined in a holistic manner. This research set out to understand and
critically review these conservation practices, identify the scale and nature of
their differing contributions, determine changing approaches and issues, and
highlight some of the possible catalysts, influences and driving forces.
The sources for the research were previously published literature, interviews
with directors, conservation professionals and MoCT, and site observations.
The site visits and interviews with foreign directors and conservation
professionals in their teams were especially useful in portraying the variety of
issues impacting conservation projects.
A specific timeframe was chosen (1979-2014) and 19 long-term foreign-run
archaeological excavations were selected. Rather than focusing on a single
excavation, the research concentrated on a group of projects, and instead of
centring on a single aspect of archaeological conservation, such as architectural
conservation, it embraced the growing multi-dimensionality of conservation.
In respect of conservation practices, this research has revealed that
architectural conservation remains a major focus at almost all of the sites. This
has encompassed a variety of interventions, including anastylosis projects and
reconstructions, and with emphasis on minimum intervention, site-scale fabric
conservation, with a more recent move towards re-assessment of previous
projects as part of site-wide concerns for maintenance. Although less
prevalent, the scope of conservation practices has widened, in line with a more
420
values-based approach, to embrace a holistic perspective reflected in the use
of management planning and the involvement of local communities in
conservation actions.
The use of management plans has entered the conservation field relatively
recently. The impacts of this change, along with the inclusion of management
plans into heritage conservation law are increasingly visible from the mid-
2000s, coinciding with Turkey’s growing interest in inscribing more sites on
the WH List. This resulted in a proliferation of management plans at some of
the examined sites in the late 2000s and early 2010s, whereas at the majority
the benefits of using management plans as conservation tools has either not
been recognized or they have been confused with landscape design projects.
In terms of conservation professionals, this research has revealed that their
presence was actively sought particularly from the early 1990s, especially in
relation to defining conservation principles. The foreign teams largely bring
experts from their own countries or seek international advice, particularly for
shelter projects acquired through architectural competitions. Collaboration
with local architectural and site conservation experts is not widespread, and
does not reach the levels of cooperation observed in material and fabric
conservation work.
Community engagement has become an increasingly important topic in
heritage conservation since the 2000s, particularly through international
guidelines such as the Faro Convention and with the recognition of heritage as
a driver of development with the ICOMOS 2011 Paris Declaration. As a
relatively new phenomenon, its reflection at the examined sites remains
limited. Generally speaking there is an absence of true community engagement
work that focuses on integrating archaeological sites and their conservation
into local ways of life. National distinctions are more readily discernible with
community-focused activities more common at Anglo-American, Belgian and
Japanese excavations. Community-oriented projects appear mainly to be
421
reflections of international developments in the field of heritage conservation,
scopes of different national archaeological practices, and perhaps also levels
of cultural diplomacy. MoCT’s interest and concern has emerged only very
recently.
The growing variety of funding sources has enabled the implementation of
numerous large and small-scale projects but conservation work, primarily
architectural conservation, has been mostly implemented through private
funding. Foreign non-profit organisations, particularly the Kaplan Fund, GHF,
WMF, are a major force, and collectively have supported 10 of the 19 sites.
The prevalence of private funding, directly or indirectly through non-profit
organisations and friends’ associations, demonstrate the strong reliance on
philanthropy. It appears that some foreign public bodies do not necessarily
associate site conservation and community engagement as part of their agenda,
which explains the substantial presence of other financial supports.
In relation to conservation practices several themes emerge. Of primary
importance is the significant move towards the integration of conservation
work into archaeological processes during which two main turning points
reveal themselves with visible shifts in emphasis and scope occurring in the
early 1990s and 2010s. The question of responsibility for conservation and the
roles of the regulating authority and the excavator as well as the increased
visibility of conservation in recent years are other themes.
The main issues impacting conservation practices are operational and
regulatory, specifically the lack of consultation, institutional cooperation, and
the emphasis on extensive architectural projects. One of the factors impacting
the holistic conservation of archaeological sites is MoCT’s narrow view of
conservation as primarily about architectural interventions and their potential
for tourism, thereby exacerbating the conflict between other values of
archaeological sites. In general, there appears to be a lack of understanding
about the wider perspective of conservation that recognizes cultural landscapes
422
betraying a fragmented understanding of heritage conservation. Recent
developments also demonstrate the impacts of the use of archaeological
permits as political leverage on archaeological and conservation work,
resulting in instability regarding the presence of foreign teams but also
increased conservation work. The co/assistant-directorship positions and
emphasis on Turkish publications, on the other hand, demonstrate MoCT’s
assertion of ownership and authority on cultural heritage and knowledge
production processes.
Lastly, this research has identified possible catalysts, influences and driving
forces behind the changes and differences in conservation practices at foreign-
run excavations. International guidelines and principles are reflected in the way
conservation work is carried out and in the direction that practices are
developed. MoCT is a significant catalyst particularly in terms of the scope of
work as well as visibility of conservation. The preferences, project selection
criteria, and continued interest of financial sources are also critical factors that
can shape practices. Differences in national approaches, possible
representative roles of conservation projects, especially architectural
interventions, as well as personal preferences of conservation experts, are some
of the other influencing factors.
5.1 Ways forward
A number of recommendations stem from the findings of this research. They
are addressed to foreign-run excavations and MoCT, and mainly involve
increased collaboration, creation of new platforms for professional and
community engagement, and enhanced use of existing mechanisms.
MoCT should ensure the continuity of foreign-run excavations for the
sustainable conservation of archaeological sites. Developed often over many
years, the know-how of foreign teams about building materials and site-
specific conservation problems and techniques, as well as the values,
sensitivities and requirements of each individual site, is crucial to provide
423
sustainable conservation. It is also important to find ways to integrate this
essential knowledge into conservation and development processes. Through a
holistic values-based interpretation, foreign teams, working in collaboration
with relevant experts, could communicate the values of sites to local authorities
and the public. This could be considered as a “stakeholder’s statement of
significance” that would not only help address conservation problems
holistically at individual sites but also serve as the preliminary steps towards a
management planning process.
Sharing conservation responsibility with foreign-run excavations requires
collaboration and increased opportunities for foreign teams to be heard. MoCT
should, therefore, create and maintain a periodic consultation structure with
foreign directors. One of the ways this can be achieved is to adopt a regular
procedure that allows MoCT to elaborate its short-term and long-term
expectations and policies concerning conservation of archaeological sites, take
on board the views of foreign teams and act productively to solve problems.
This would be extremely beneficial for the development of sustainable
conservation projects at foreign-run excavations and could perhaps lead to a
mutually agreed long-term code to tackle continuously changing legislative
conditions.
Progress can be made with regards to connecting foreign-run excavations and
local conservation experts, whose experience and know-how could be
beneficial to foreign teams in a number of ways. As national conservation
terminologies differ significantly, such collaborations would not only create
opportunities to develop common languages but also foster better
understanding of the heritage conservation legislation and its requirements.
Although long-standing collaborations exist between local and foreign
archaeology departments, the same cannot be said for heritage conservation.
Foreign teams should try to form links with local universities that have well-
established cultural heritage conservation programmes. This is one way to
foster international collaboration, transfer of skills and local knowledge,
424
particularly as such schemes would also involve students. Creating regional
links between foreign and local experts working at excavations in the same
region should also be considered. This could be through regular workshops or
other events. Such links may also lead to the formation of emergency
conservation action groups that could be especially beneficial in establishing
site maintenance mechanisms in the absence of foreign teams.
MoCT can contribute significantly to enhancing collaboration between local
and foreign conservation experts by creating opportunities for engagement. In
view of the long tradition of archaeological conservation in Turkey, it is
perhaps surprising that opportunities to bring together foreign and local experts
working on archaeological conservation are incredibly limited. Sharing
conservation decisions and decision-making processes would not only allow
for more debate and progress but also encourage the development of localised
approaches and contribute to new collaborations. This is especially relevant in
the constantly changing and evolving regulatory frameworks, and national and
international debates on archaeological conservation. A significant
predecessor is the “Arkeolojik Sit Alanlarının Korunması ve Değerlendirilmesi
I. Ulusal Sempozyumu” that took place in 1991. A regular event resulting in
publications would be extremely beneficial in bringing together conservation
professionals to share and discuss their projects. Creative collaborations such
as alliances that bring together local and foreign institutions and universities
for conservation of archaeological sites should also be considered. The planned
establishment of the EU-Turkey Anatolian Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Institute in Gaziantep could be a new driver.
At a time when inclusiveness and participation are increasingly on the agenda,
community engagement and outreach should become integral parts of
conservation programmes at foreign-run excavations. Awareness-raising
activities have also become a legislative requirement. Rather than turning it
into a tick-boxing exercise, however, it would be beneficial to identify the
diversity in communities and integrate assessment processes to understand
425
local impacts of awareness-raising activities. Supporting local development in
the form of capacity building, as well as confidence building and
empowerment, should be considered. Particularly the latter has potentials of
creating a sense of ownership and thereby aid site conservation. These are areas
in which collaboration with local experts can particularly make a difference.
Public dissemination, accessibility and relevance of information are tools of
public engagement. To improve outreach in the short-term, one of the most
obvious and simplest ways would be the use of websites. Although websites
are being used by foreign teams, they have yet to be explored as active tools
for community engagement. Websites have the potential to become platforms
for open data to be used by different groups, not only academics or experts.
Creation of more Turkish content is therefore necessary. It is also possible to
share this information more imaginatively in the form ‘hackathons’ to
encourage co-design and increased engagement.
MoCT should create a transparent and mutually beneficial evaluation process
in terms of site conservation. The specific aspects of site conservation that
MoCT examines include architectural conservation, site security, and inter-
seasonal protection measures etc. The criteria MoCT employs to monitor
progress, however, is not clear. Although regulations form a foundation for
such reviews, a better-defined review process that is transparent should be
made possible. This would be useful not only to the excavation teams but also
encourage an objective assessment, and help prevent, for example,
expectations of same solutions to seemingly similar problems, which are
against internationally recognized principles.
MoCT should actively use management plans for the conservation and
sustainable development of archaeological sites. Management plans have
generally been prepared in association with World Heritage Site nominations
or for those sites already on the WH List. The site management regulation
(2005), however, was intended to cover all archaeological sites in Turkey.
426
Management plans are designed to facilitate a balance between site
conservation, access, sustainable economic development and local interest
with the collaboration of stakeholders, including public organisations, NGOs,
and the local public (Article 5). As such, they can significantly help address
most of the issues impacting conservation practices, particularly in relation to
the lack of institutional cooperation, and inadequately defined responsibilities
of organisations and institutions other than archaeological teams and MoCT.
They could be also beneficial against requests made outside the collaboratively
agreed general action plan. Participatory preparation, as the regulation calls
for, is essential; however, there have been several cases where archaeological
teams were left out of the management plan preparation process. MoCT should
find ways to ensure that preparation and implementation involves the
participation of foreign teams even when it is the duty of the local authority to
prepare the plan. Management plans may also pave the way for the
transformation of archaeological excavations into heritage conservation and
management projects.
5.2 Further research
The wide-ranging and multi-faceted subject of conservation practices at
foreign-run archaeological excavations has been a neglected subject for
research. The previous chapters have begun to explore this potential and
further research might focus on some of the following subjects that can be
applicable not only in understanding foreign practices but also heritage
conservation as a whole.
This research noted the differences in approaches between certain countries,
which are mainly the result of factors such as archaeological and heritage
conservation philosophies, the priorities and aims of archaeological
institutions abroad, and international guidelines. An investigation into
conservation practices at excavations run by specific countries would help
understand how decision-making processes are guided by these factors and
how Turkish provisions might relate.
427
This research has touched upon the variety of sources that fund different types
of conservation work, revealing the significant contributions of several foreign
non-profit organisations, such as WMF, GHF, Kress and GHF, to certain key
projects at a number of sites. A detailed examination of their funding criteria,
selection processes, supported projects, as well as their organisational
structures and donor companies, would contribute significantly to
understanding the network, priorities, and driving forces that lead them to
support projects in Turkey.
Engaging the public in archaeological and conservation projects is becoming
increasingly important to provide sustainable conservation and development.
Recent years have seen a noticeable increase at archaeological excavations
(foreign and Turkish-run) to involve especially local people with
archaeological heritage. As noted in this research, however, the impacts of
such projects are waiting to be investigated. Further research, therefore, could
focus on identifying their effectiveness as well as emerging potentials and
problems.
One of the salient aspects of recent conservation work this research has
identified is projects concerning previous conservation interventions. Re-
conservation projects mostly aim to remedy erroneous treatments and
increasing the life-span of monuments, particularly at those excavations that
have been operating for a long period. Could these projects, however, come to
represent a more pressing aspect of the future of architectural conservation
practices? If periodic and holistic site maintenance were to become more
common, could forthcoming conservation interventions mainly focus on re-
conservation? In this case, do previous interventions have any historical or
conservation value? While a prevalent view is that they should be preserved as
representations of specific approaches, these are questions worth exploring
further.
428
This research investigated only foreign-run archaeological excavations but a
review of conservation practices at Turkish-run excavations would be similarly
fundamental in trying to understand and develop conservation of
archaeological sites in Turkey. A final research topic could set out to focus on
Turkish-run excavations using the methodology developed in this research,
concentrating on conservation practices (conservation work, conservation
teams, financial sources, and forms of community engagement), issues
impacting conservation practices, and possible catalysts. This could provide an
opportunity to better evaluate their varying contributions and conservation
problems, as well as to make comparisons between foreign-run and Turkish-
run projects.
*
As quoted at the outset, “archaeological sites are made, not found” (Matero
2008:3). This research is a testament to this observation. Problems are
manifold, but that is the case in every country. It is hoped that this research
contributes towards enhanced policies, further understanding and collaboration
for the holistic conservation of Turkey’s archaeological heritage.
429
REFERENCES
Ackerman, L. & Palumbo, G., 2014, ‘World Monuments Fund (WMF)’, in C.
Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, pp. 7907–7910, Springer.
Ahunbay, Z., 2010, ‘Arkeolojik Alanlarda Koruma Sorunları: Kuramsal ve
Yasal Açıdan Değerlendirme’, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, pp. 103–119,
Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
Akan Mimarlık, 2002, Pamukkale Project Area Management and Presentation
Plan, viewed 3 September 2016, from
http://www.akanmimarlik.com/en/works/urban-planning-and-spatial-
management-plans/pamukkale-project-area-management-and-presentation-
plan/90.
Akat, H.İ., Mert, İ.H. & Filges, A., 2016, ‘2014 Yılı Priene Çalışmaları’, 37.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Erzurum, 11-15 May 2015, pp. 121–146.
Akçura, N., 1972, ‘Türkiye ve Eski Eserler’, Mimarlık(8), 39–42.
Akın, N., 1993, ‘Osman Hamdi Bey, Âsâr-ı Atika Nizamnamesi ve Dönemin
Koruma Anlayışı Üzerine’, in Z. Rona (ed.), Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi:
Sempozyum: 17-18 Aralık 1992, pp. 233–239, Tarih Vakfı Yurt yayınları,
İstanbul.
Aliyev, T., Gasimova, S. & Yoshida, M., 2011, ‘An Approach to Sustainable
Care and Protection of Archaeological Heritage’, International Conference on
“Present Situation and Development Perspectives of Museums", Baku, 28
June-02 July 2011.
Alofsin, A., 2006, When buildings speak: Architecture as language in the
Habsburg Empire and its aftermath, 1867-1933, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ill., London, from
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0666/2005021958-b.html.
Altuğ, E., 2016, ‘Yüzyıllık dostluğun kumarını oynuyoruz’, Cumhuriyet, 5
September, viewed 13 September 2016, from
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/kultur-
sanat/595885/Yuzyillik_dostlugun_kumarini_oynuyoruz.html.
430
Anayurt Gazetesi, 2015, “Malatya’nın Mirası Arslantepe”, viewed 12
December 2015, from http://www.anayurtgazetesi.com/haber/Malatya-nin-
Mirasi-Arslantepe/547557.
Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti (ed.), 1993, Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme:
Türkiye'deki İtalyan Kazıları, Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti.
Apaydin, V., 2015, ‘Value, Meaning and Understanding of Heritage:
Perception and Interpretation of Local Communities in Turkey’, in A. Castillo
Mena (ed.), Second International Conference on Best Practices in World
Heritage: People and Communities, 29 April - 2 May 2015, pp. 204–211.
Apaydin, V., 2016, ‘Effective or not? Success or failure? Assessing heritage
and archaeological education programmes – the case of Çatalhöyük’,
International Journal of Heritage Studies 22(10), 828–843.
Aramian, C.W., 2007, ‘Cultural Heritage Conservation and Corporate Social
Responsibility’, Interpreting the Past? Who Owns the Past? Heritage Rights
and Responsibilities in a Multicultural World: Proceedings of the Second
Annual Ename International Colloquium, Provincial Capitol, Ghent, Belgium,
22-25 March 2006, pp. 58–68.
Araoz, G., 2013, ‘Conservation Philosophy and its Development: Changing
Understandings of Authenticity and Significance’, Heritage & Society 6(2),
144–154.
Araoz, G.F., 2011, ‘Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm’, Journal
of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1(1), 55–60.
Archaeological Institute of America, 1994, Code of Professional Standards,
from https://www.archaeological.org/, viewed 10 May 2016.
ARIT, n.d., ARIT Mission and History, viewed 10 December 2015, from
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ARIT/.
Arkeologlar Derneği, 2010, 32. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri
Sempozyumu’nun ardından, viewed 16 June 2010, from
http://arkeologlardernegist.org/news28.php.
Arkeologlar Derneği, 2016, Efes Kazı Başkanı Sabine Ladstätter Kazının
Durdurulması İle İlgili Açıklama Yaptı, viewed 13 September 2016, from
http://arkeologlardernegi.org/5013/efes-kazi-baskani-sabine-ladstatter-
kazinin-durdurulmasi-ile-ilgili-aciklama-yapti/.
431
Arkeologlar Derneği İstanbul Şubesi, 2016, “Yabancı” Arkeolojik Kazıların
Durdurulması, Istanbul, viewed 13 September 2016, from
https://www.facebook.com/ArkeologlarDernegiIstanbulSubesi/.
Art War with Turkey?, n.d., viewed 7 January 2016, from
http://committeeforculturalpolicy.org/art-war-with-turkey/.
Arthur, P., 2012, ‘Hierapolis of Phrygia: The Drawn-Out Demise of an
Anatolian City’, Vrbes Extinctae: Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical
Towns 2012, 275–305.
Asatekin, G., 1981, ‘Selçuk - Efes Çevre Düzenleme Ve Kazı - Onarım
Projesi’, III. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, pp. 121–123.
Aslan, R., 2010, ‘Troia'da Koruma Uygulamaları ve Ören Yerinin Sunumu’,
TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, vol. 8, pp. 175–182, Türkiye Bilimler
Akademisi.
Atakuman, C., 2008, ‘Cradle or crucible: Anatolia and archaeology in the early
years of the Turkish Republic (1923--1938)’, Journal of Social Archaeology
8(2), 214–235.
Atakuman, Ç., 2010, ‘Value of Heritage in Turkey: History and Politics of
Turkey’s World Heritage Nominations’, Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 23(1), 107–131.
Atalay, S., 2010, ‘‘We don't talk about Çatalhöyük, we live it’: sustainable
archaeological practice through community-based participatory research’,
World Archaeology 42(3), 418–429.
Atalay, S., Çamurcuoğlu Cleere D., Hodder I., Moser S., Orbaşlı A. & Pye E.,
2010, ‘Protecting and Exhibiting Çatalhöyük’, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri
Dergisi, vol. 8, pp. 7–18, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
Ateşoğulları, S., 2002, Arkeolojik söyleşiler, Arkeoloji ve Arkeologlar Derneği
Yayınları, Ankara.
Atlas, 2009, ‘Müze Ve Ören Yerlerinin Satış Noktaları Özelleştirildi!’, Atlas,
12 May.
Atlıman, S.A., 2008, ‘Museological and Archeological Studies in the Ottoman
Empire during the Westernization Process in the 19th century’, Master thesis,
Department of History, Middle East Technical University.
432
Avrami, E., Mason, R. & de la Torre, M., 2000, Values and Heritage
Conservation, The J. Paul Getty Tr.
Aygen, Z., 2015, International Heritage and Historic Building Conservation:
Saving the World's Past, Routledge.
Bachmann, M., 2006, ‘The Shelter over Bau Z in Pergamon’, in Z. Ahunbay
and Ü. İzmirligil (eds.), Management and preservation of archaeological sites,
Side (Antalya-Turkey), 29 April - 2 May 2002, pp. 40–44.
Bachmann, M., 2013, ‘Pergamon - 2011 Restorasyon Çalışmaları’, 34. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 421–428.
Bachmann, M., 2014a, ‘Die Rote Halle als Schlüsselmonument eines
Entwicklungsplans für Bergama: Bergama'ya ait Gelişim Planlarında Anahtar
Yapı olarak Kızıl Avlu’, in M. Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage in context:
Conservation and site management within natural, urban and social
frameworks, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Bachmann, M., 2014b, ‘Ortaya Çıkarmak ve Korumak: Pergamon'da 130
Yıllık Restorasyon Tarihçesi: Excavation and Conservation: 130 Years of
Restoration History at Pergamon’, in F. Pirson and A. Scholl (eds.), Pergamon,
Anadolu'da Hellenistik bir başkent: Pergamon, A Hellenistic capital in
Anatolia,1st edn., pp. 80–101, Tüpraş; Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Bachmann, M., 2014c, Pergamon, Türkei: Restaurierung: Die Arbeiten der
Jahre 2012 und 2013.
Bachmann, M. & Schwarting, A., 2005, Pergamon Bau Z /Building Z:
Schutzbau über römischen Mosaiken, w.e.b, Dresden.
Bachmann, M. & Schwarting, A., 2008, ‘Conservation projects in Pergamon.
Building Z and the shelter constructed above it’, Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites 10(2), 157–173.
Bahrani, Z., 2011, ‘Untold Tales of Mesopotamian Discovery’, in Z. Bahrani,
Z. Çelik, & E. Eldem (eds.), Scramble for the past: A story of archaeology in
the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914, pp. 125–155, SALT, Istanbul.
Bahrani, Z., Çelik, Z. & Eldem, E. (eds.), 2011, Scramble for the past: A story
of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914, SALT, Istanbul.
433
Bailey, M., 2012, ‘Turkey turns up the heat on foreign museums’, The Art
Newspaper, 13 June, from http://old.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Turkey-
turns-up-the-heat-on-foreign-museums/26607#.
Balderrame, A.A. & Chiari, G., 1995, ‘Protection and Conservation of
Excavated Structures of Mudbrick’, in N. Stanley Price (ed.), Conservation on
archaeological excavations with particular reference to the Mediterranean
area,2nd edn., pp. 101–111.
Balter, M., 2009, ‘Archaeology. Archaeologists alarmed by Turkey's proposed
dig rules’, Science 326(5952), 510–511.
Bammer, A., 1997, ‘Ephesus’, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia
of archaeology in the Near East, vol. 2, pp. 252–255, Oxford University Press,
New York, Oxford.
Bammer, A., 2010, ‘Die Österreichischen Grabungen in Ephesos von 1961 bis
2008: Technologie, Wirtschaft und Politik’, Anatolia Antiqua 2010, 35–58.
Barchard, D., 2004, ‘Modernity, Muslims and British Archaeologists: Michael
Gough at the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara and His Predecessors’,
in D. Shankland (ed.), Archaeology, anthropology and heritage in the Balkans
and Anatolia: The life and times of F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920, 257-280, Isis
Press, Istanbul.
Bartu, A., 1999, ‘Archaeological Practice as Guerilla Activity in Late
Modernity’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12.1, 91–95.
Bartu, A., 2000, ‘Where is Çatalhöyük? Multiple Sites in the Construction of
an Archaeological Site’, in I. Hodder (ed.), Towards reflexive method in
archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyük / by members of the Çatalhöyük
teams, pp. 101–109, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge.
Bartu Candan, A., 2007, ‘Developing Educational Programmes for Prehistoric
Sites: the Çatalhöyük case’, in I. Hodder and L. Doughty (eds.), Mediterranean
prehistoric heritage: Training, education and management, pp. 95–104,
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Başgelen, N. (ed.), 2012, Türkiye ve İtalya Arkeolojik Ufuklar, Arkeoloji ve
Sanat Yayınları.
434
Başgelen, N. (ed.), 2013, Ricerche archeologiche Italiane in Turchia, restauro
e valorizzazione: Türkiye'deki İtalyan arkeolojik araştırmaları, restorasyon ve
değerlendirme, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.
Bayram, F. (ed.), 2008, Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri
Sempozyumu'nun 30. yılı anısına Türkiye Arkeolojisi, T.C. Kültür ve Turizm
Bakanlığı Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
BBC News, 2011, ‘Weary Herakles bust to be returned by US to Turkey’, BBC
News, 22 July, viewed 24 July 2011, from
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14246476.
Becker, J., Clare, L., Dietrich, O., Köksal-Schmidt, Ç., Merbach, A. & Notroff,
J., et al., 2014, Göbeklitepe Newsletter 2014, viewed 9 January 2016, from
http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/21890#_LFR_FN__projectdisplay_WAR_daiportlet_view_download
s.
Bergama Municipality World Heritage Office, 2013, Pergamon and Its Multi-
Layered Cultural Landscape: WHL Nomination Dossier.
Berköz, E., 2009, ‘İtalyan Kazı Başkanları Tepkili’, Cumhuriyet, 7 September.
Bernbeck, R., 2012, ‘The Political Dimension of Archaeological Practices’, in
D.T. Potts (ed.), A companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near East, 87-
105, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Bernbeck, R. & Pollock, S., 2008, ‘The Political Economy of Archaeological
Practice and the Production of Heritage in the Middle East’, in L. Meskell and
R.W. Preucel (eds.), A companion to social archaeology,1st edn., pp. 335–352,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Bilefsky, D., 2012, Oct 01, ‘Seeking return of art, Turkey jolts museums’, New
York Times, 2012, Oct 01.
Bittel, K., 1980, ‘The German Perspective and the German Archaeological
Institute’, American Journal of Archaeology 84(3), 271–277.
Blömer, M. & Winter, E., 2014, ‘Dülük Baba Tepesi'nde/Doliche'de
(Gaziantep) 2012 Sezonu Çalışmaları’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Muğla, 28-31 May 2013.
435
Blömer, M. & Winter, E., 2015, ‘Dülük Baba Tepesi/Doliche (Gaziantep) 2013
Yılı Çalışmalarının Raporu’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Gaziantep,
2-6 June 2014, pp. 37–58.
Boccia Paterakis, A., 2011, Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Turkey:
Kaman-Kalehöyük, IIC.
Boccia Paterakis, A., 2015, History of Conservation in Kaman-Kalehöyük ,
Turkey, ASOR, viewed 30 August 2015, from
http://asorblog.org/2015/08/13/history-of-conservation-in-kaman-
kaleho%CC%88yu%CC%88k-turkey/.
Borchardt, J., 1994, ‘Bericht Der Grabungskampagne in Limyra 1992’, XV.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 24-28 May 1993, pp. 257–277.
Bouchenaki, M., 2005, ‘Foreword’, ICOMOS World Report 2004-2005 on
monuments and sites in danger, viewed 12 July 2016, from
http://www.icomos.org/risk/2004/foreword2004.pdf.
Boz, Z., 2012, Boğazköy Sphinx and Turkey's Policy on Return and Restitution
Cases: Presentation at the Conference of Experts on the Return of Cultural
Property, Korea.
Braemer, F., 2012, ‘Foreign schools and institutes around the Mediterranean
Sea: relics of the past or renewed tools for scientific partnership?’, in S.J. van
der Linde, et al. (eds.), European archaeology abroad: Global settings,
comparative perspectives, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Brown, G.B., 1905, The Care of Ancient Monuments: An Account of the
Legislative and Other Measures Adopted in European Countries for
Protecting Ancient Monuments and Objects and Scenes of Natural Beauty, and
for Preserving the Aspect of Historical Cities, Cambridge: At the University
Press.
Burney, C.A., 2004, Historical dictionary of the Hittites, Scarecrow Press,
Lanham, Md., Oxford.
Caggia, M.P. & Ismaelli, T., 2010, Virtual Hierapolis, MAIER-Missione
Archeologica Italiana a Hierapolis.
Cahill, N., 2014, ‘Sardis 2012’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Muğla,
28-31 May 2013, pp. 119–135.
436
Cahill, N., 2015, ‘Sardis 2013’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Gaziantep, 2-6 June 2014, pp. 413–430.
Cahill, N.D., 2011, ‘Sardis, 2009’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt,
Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 358–367.
Cahill, N.D., 2013, ‘Sardis, 2011’, 34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 147–160.
Caldararo, N.L., 1987, ‘An Outline History of Conservation in Archaeology
and Anthropology as Presented through Its Publications’, Journal of the
American Institute for Conservation 26(2), 85.
Cameron, C. & Inaba, N., 2015, ‘The Making of the Nara Document on
Authenticity’, APT Bulletin 46(4), 30–37.
Campagna, L. & Limoncelli, M., 2012, ‘The Nymphaeum of the Tritons at
Hierapolis of Phrygia (Turkey): From Excavations to 3D-Virtual
Reconstruction: An Example of Integrated Methods in the Study of Ancient
Architecture’, in A. Ferrari (ed.), 5th International Congress on "Science and
Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean
Basin", Istanbul, 22-25 November 2011, pp. 280–288.
Caneva, I. & Jean, E., 2016, ‘Mersin-Yumuktepe Une Mise Au Point Sur Les
Derniers Travaux’, Anatolia Antiqua / Eski Anadolu XXIII, 13–34.
Caneva, I. & Köroğlu, G., 2009, ‘Excavations at Mersin Yumuktepe Höyüğü
in 2007’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp.
151–162.
Canşen, F., 2011, ‘Almanya ile sfenks krizi’, Ntvmsnbc, 1 March, viewed 5
March 2011, from http://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/almanya-ile-sfenks-
krizi,6m5A8wzVUESwjoOJykx1uw.
Carratelli, G.P., 1993, ‘Giriş’, in Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti (ed.),
Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme: Türkiye'deki İtalyan Kazıları, pp. 13–30,
Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti.
Carroll, S., 1998, ‘Temporary protection of a tel site excavation in central
Turkey’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2(3), 155–
162.
Carroll, S. & Wharton, G., 1996, ‘Field conservation at Kaman-Kalehöyük:
An holistic approach’, Studies in Conservation 41(Supplement-1), 22–26.
437
Cevizoğlu, H., 2015, ‘Değişen Kültürel Miras: Turizm Politikaları Sonrasında
Didyma Kazıları’, in Ç. Çilingiroğlu and N. Pınar Özgüner (eds.), Değişen
Arkeoloji: 1. Teorik Arkeoloji Grubu - Türkiye Toplantısı Bildirileri /
Changing Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1st TAG-Turkey Meeting, Ege
Yayınları, İstanbul.
Challis, D., 2008, From the Harpy Tomb to the wonders of Ephesus: British
archaeologists in the Ottoman Empire, 1840-1880, Duckworth, London.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014a, Code of Conduct, from
http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CodesofConduct.pdf, viewed
15 December 2015.
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014b, Standard and guidance for
stewardship for the historic environment, from
http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/CIfAS%26GStewardship_2.
pdf.
Chase, G., 1916, ‘Archaeology in 1915’, The Classical Journal 12(3), 200–
208.
Chatzoudis, G., 2012, ‘"A tendency to use power over excavators"-
Archaeology in Turkey. Interview with Dr Edhem Eldem’, L.I.S.A. Das
Wissenschaftsportal Der Gerda Henkel Stiftung, 5 September.
Chechi, A., Bandle, A.L. & Renold, M.-A., 2011, Case Boğazköy Sphinx –
Turkey and Germany, Platform ArThemis (http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-Law
Centre, University of Geneva, from https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-
affaires/bogazkoy-sphinx-2013-turkey-and-germany.
Chowne, P., Kotsakis, K. & Orbaşlı, A., 2007, ‘Management Plans for
Prehistoric Sites’, in I. Hodder and L. Doughty (eds.), Mediterranean
prehistoric heritage: Training, education and management, pp. 9–19,
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
CNNTürk, 2008, ‘Kültür Bakanı Arkeolojiye 'Taze Kan' İstiyor’, CNNTürk, 2
September.
Cook, B.F., 1998, ‘British Archaeologists in the Aegean’, in V. Brand (ed.),
The study of the past in the Victorian age, pp. 139–154, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Corbett, E.D., 2015, Competitive archaeology in Jordan: Narrating identity
from the Ottomans to the Hashemites, University of Texas Press, Austin.
438
Coulton, J.J., 2012, The Balboura Survey and settlement in Highland
Southwest Anatolia, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London.
Courtils, J. de, 2003, ‘Ksanthos 2001 Yılı Kazı Kampanyası’, 24. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 27-31 May 2002, pp. 243–246.
Cross, T.M., 1997, ‘American Research Institute in Turkey’, in E.M. Meyers
(ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East, vol. 1, p. 92,
Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
Cumhuriyet, 2011, ‘Aizanoi'de kazı yapan Alman Enstitüsü'nün lisansına
iptal’, Cumhuriyet, 24 February, from
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/diger/224856/Aizanoi_de_kazi_yapan_
Alman_Enstitusu_nun_lisansina_iptal.html.
Curry, A., 2016, ‘Dünyanın En Eski Tapınağı Göbekli Tepe Yenileniyor’,
National Geographic, 21 January, viewed 26 May 2016, from
http://www.nationalgeographic.com.tr/makale/dunyanin-en-eski-tapinagi-
gobekli-tepe-yenileniyor/2716.
Curtis, C. & Biehl, P., 2015, April, Çatalhöyük and Localized Universality: the
challenge of sustaining heritage post-UNESCO, paper presented at The 80th
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco on
2015, April.
Çal, H., 1990a, ‘Türkiye'de Cumhuriyet Devri Taşınmaz Eski Eser Tahribatı
Ve Sebepleri’, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi
1990, 353–378.
Çal, H., 1990b, ‘Türkiye'nin Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eski Eser Politikası’, PhD,
Ankara University Department of Archaeology and Art History.
Çal, H., 1997, ‘Osmanlı Devletinde Asar-ı Atika Nizamnameleri’, Vakıflar
Dergisi XXVI, 391–400.
Çal, H., 2003, ‘Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyete Eski Eserler Kanunları’, in E.S.
Yalçın (ed.), 60. Yılında İlim ve Fikir Adamı Prof. Dr. Kazım Yaşar
Kopraman'a Armağan, pp. 234–270, Berikan Yayınları, Ankara.
Çamurcuoğlu, D., 2009, ‘Conservation’, Çatalhöyük 2009 Archive Report, pp.
139–143.
Çamurcuoğlu Cleere, D. & Felter, M., 2006, ‘Conserving the Oldest: 'The
Neolithic Settlement of Çatalhöyük'’, ICON March 2006(3), 44–45.
439
Çekirge, F., 2012, ‘11 bin yıl öncesinden gelen o heykel nereye uçtu?’,
Hürriyet, 20 February, viewed 25 February 2012, from
http://www.hurriyet.corn.tr/11-bin-yil-oncesinden-gelen-o-heykel-nereye-
uctu-19956425.
Çelebi, M., 2007, ‘Antalya Bölgesinde İtalyan Arkeoloji Heyetleri’, Adalya X,
1–16.
Çelik, Z., 2011, ‘Defining Empire's Patrimony: Late Ottoman Perceptions of
Antiquities’, in Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik, & E. Eldem (eds.), Scramble for the past:
A story of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914, pp. 443–477,
SALT, Istanbul.
Çelik, Z., 2016, About antiquities: Politics of archaeology in the Ottoman
Empire.
Çıplak, C., 2009, ‘Zorla evlendirilmek gibi’, Cumhuriyet, 13 October.
Çilingiroğlu, Ç. & N. Pınar Özgüner (eds.), 2015, Değişen Arkeoloji: 1. Teorik
Arkeoloji Grubu - Türkiye Toplantısı Bildirileri / Changing Archaeology:
Proceedings of the 1st TAG-Turkey Meeting, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
Çizmecioğlu, A., 2012, ‘Parzinger: ″Diese Schätze gehören allen″’, Deutsche
Welle, 17 December, viewed 12 September 2013, from
http://www.dw.com/de/parzinger-diese-schätze-gehören-allen/a-16454074.
DAI, n.d.a, Baudenkmalausschuss, viewed 13 January 2016, from
https://www.dainst.org/dai/organisation/organe/baudenkmalausschuss.
DAI, n.d.b, Cultural heritage, viewed 17 March 2016, from
http://www.dainst.org/en/forschung/kulturerhalt.
DAI, n.d.c, Cultural Heritage: Tasks and challenges, viewed 13 January 2016,
from https://www.dainst.org/forschung/kulturerhalt/aufgaben.
DAI, n.d.d, Pergamon - Kulturerhalt, viewed 20 March 2016, from
http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/516243#_LFR_FN__projectdisplay_WAR_daiportlet_view_general.
DAI, 2011, Bewahrung archäologischen Kulturgutsfür die Nachwelt:
Restaurierungs- und Rekonstruktionsprojekte des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts (DAI).
DAI, 2015a, e-Jahresbericht 2014.
440
DAI, 2015b, Göbekli Tepe – Kulturerhalt: Dauerhafter Schutz der
Monumente: Maßnahmen der Sanierung, Konservierung und Restaurierung,
viewed 7 March 2016, from http://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/22020.
DAI, 2016, Archäologie als Instrument der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit,
viewed 25 May 2016, from
https://www.dainst.org/dai/organisation/auswaertiges-amt/archaeologie-als-
instrument-der-entwicklungszusammenarbeit.
D'Andria, F., 2002, ‘Hierapolis Antik Kenti 2000 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım
Çalışmaları’, 23. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 22 May - 1 June
2001, pp. 99–106.
D'Andria, F., 2006a, ‘Hierapolis 2004 Yılı Kazı ve Araştırma Çalışmaları’, 27.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Antalya, 30 May - 3 June 2005, pp. 229–240.
D'Andria, F., 2006b, ‘Hierapolis of Phrygia’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen
und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 113–
124, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
D'Andria, F., 2006c, ‘Re-use and presentation of ancient theatres’, in Z.
Ahunbay and Ü. İzmirligil (eds.), Management and preservation of
archaeological sites, Side (Antalya-Turkey), 29 April - 2 May 2002, pp. 82–
86.
D'Andria, F., 2008, ‘Phrygia Hierapolisi 2006 Yılı Araştırma, Kazı ve Onarım
Çalışmaları’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June
2007, pp. 405–428.
D'Andria, F., 2009, ‘Phrygia Hierapolisi 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 30. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp. 393–408.
D'Andria, F., 2010, ‘Phrygia Hierapolis'i 2008 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 31. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Denizli, 25-29 May 2009, pp. 213–234.
D'Andria, F., 2011, ‘Phrygia Hierapolisi (Pamukkale) 2009 Yılı Kazı ve
Onarım Çalışmaları’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28
May 2010, pp. 76–91.
D'Andria, F., 2012, ‘Phrygia Hierapolis'i (Pamukkale) 2010 Yılı Kazı ve
Onarım Çalışmaları’, 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Malatya, 23-28
May 2011, pp. 475–495.
441
D'Andria, F., 2013, November, A project for the Theatre of Hierapolis:
Principles of conservation and sustainability in the anastylosis of the scaenae
frons, paper presented at the 1st International Symposium On Archaeological
Practices: Principles of Conservation and Application in Archaeological Sites,
Denizli on 2013, November.
D'Andria, F., 2013, ‘Phrygia Hierapolisi (Pamukkale) 2011 Yılı Kazı ve
Onarım Çalışmaları’, 34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1
June 2012, pp. 125–138.
D'Andria, F., 2015, ‘Phrygia Hierapolis'i (Pamukkale) 2013 Yılı Kazı ve
Onarım Çalışmaları’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Gaziantep, 2-6 June
2014, pp. 203–222.
D'Andria, F., Scardozzi, G. & Spanò, A. (eds.), 2008, Hierapolis di Frigia II.
Atlante di Hierapolis di Frigia, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
Davis, J.L., 2003, ‘A Foreign School of Archaeology and the Politics of
Archaeological Practice’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16(2).
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1989, ‘Fouilles Et Restaurations A Hierapolis En
1987’, X. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 23-27 May 1988, pp. 293–300.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1990, ‘Preliminary Report on the 1988 Excavation
Campaign’, XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Antalya, 18-23 May 1989, pp.
245–255.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1992, ‘1990 Yılı Hierapolis Kazısı’, XIII. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 27-31 May 1991, pp. 131–140.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1995, ‘Frigya Hierapolis'i 1993 Kazı ve
Restorasyonları’, XVI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 30 May - 3 June
1994.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1996, ‘Excavations and Restoration During 1994 in
Hierapolis of Phrygia’, XVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 29 May - 2
June 1995, pp. 95–105.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1997, ‘Excavations and Restorations in Hierapolis
during 1995’, XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 27-31 May 1996,
pp. 85–99.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1998, ‘Report on the Mission's Activity Carried out in
1996’, XIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, pp. 237–248.
442
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 1999, ‘Hierapolis İtalyan Kazı Kurulu 1997 Dönemi
Çalışma Raporu’, XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998,
pp. 263–281.
de Bernardi Ferrero, D., 2001, ‘İtalyan Kazı Kurulunun 1999 Yılında
Gerçekleştirdiği İşlerin Raporu’, 22. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Izmir,
22-26 May 2000, pp. 195–208.
de la Torre, M., 2013, ‘Values and Heritage Conservation’, Heritage & Society
6(2), 155–166.
Degryse, P., Torun, E., Corremans, M., Heldal, T., Bloxam, E.G. & Waelkens,
M., 2009, ‘Preservation and promotion of the Sagalassos quarry and town
landscape, Turkey’, Geological Survey Of Norway Special Publication 12(97–
102).
del Bono, E., 2015, 2015 Field Report Gordion Site Conservation Program
Structural Stabilization of the Early Phrygian Gate.
Demas, M., 1997, ‘Ephesus’, in M. de la Torre (ed.), The Conservation of
Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, pp. 127–149.
Demoule, J.-P., 2009, ‘The crisis – economic, ideological, and archaeological’,
in N. Schlanger and K. Aitchison (eds.), Archaeology and the global economic
crisis – Multiple impacts, possible solutions: Proceedings of the “Archaeology
and the global crisis – multiple impacts, possible solutions” session, Italy, 17
September 2009, pp. 13–19.
Denizli Güncel, 2016, ‘Kazamayan adam ile yine yeniden’, Denizli Güncel, 29
August, viewed 1 September 2016, from
http://www.denizliguncel.com/kent/kazamayan-adam-ile-yine-yeniden-
h901.html.
DeNovo, J.A., 1963, American interests and policies in the Middle East, 1900-
1939, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2005, Statutes of the German
Archaeological Institute, from
http://www.dainst.org/documents/10180/29971/Satzung+DAI+Englisch/7d5e
e7b6-c8b6-4676-b6dd-606d95236818, viewed 2 June 2015.
deVries, K., 1989, ‘Gordion Work 1987’, X. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I,
Ankara, 23-27 May 1988, pp. 175–180.
443
Díaz-Andreu, M., 2007, A world history of nineteenth-century archaeology:
Nationalism, colonialism, and the past, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dietrich, O., Köksal-Schmidt, Ç., Kürkçüoğlı, C., Notroff, J. & Schmidt, K.,
2014, ‘Göbekli Tepe: Preliminary Report on the 2012 and 2013 Excavation
Seasons’, Neo-Lithics 1/14.
Dietrich, O., Notroff, J. & Schmidt, K., ‘Göbekli Tepe Ein exzeptioneller
Fundplatz des frühesten Neolithikums auf dem Weg zum Weltkulturerbe:
Göbekli Tepe Dünya Kültür Mirasına Girme Yolunda Olağandışı Bir Erken
Neolitik Buluntu Yeri’, Anatolien - Brücke der Kulturen Kültürlerin Köprüsü
Anadolu.
Dietrich, O., Notroff, J. & Schmidt, K., 2015, ‘Göbekli Tepe Ein exzeptioneller
Fundplatz des frühesten Neolithikums auf dem Weg um Weltkulturerbe:
Göbekli Tepe Dünya Kültür Mirasına Girme Yolunda Olağandışı Bir Erken
Neolitik Buluntu Yeri’, in Ü. Yalçın and H.-D. Bienert (eds.), Anatolien -
Brücke der Kulturen, Bonn, 07-09.07.2014.
digitalGordion, 2011, Site Conservation, digitalGordion, viewed 21 January
2016, from http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/site-conservation/site-
conservation/.
Diken, 2016, ‘Avusturyalı arkeologların kazıları yasaklanmıştı: Uluslararası
çalışmalar baltalanmamalı’, Diken, 9 September, viewed 13 September 2016,
from http://www.diken.com.tr/avusturyali-arkeologlarin-kazilari-
yasaklanmisti-uluslararasi-calismalar-baltalanmamali.
Dinçer, B., 2012, ‘Arkeolojinin Tetikçileri’, Arkeoloji Gazetesi, 11 June,
viewed 31 July 2012, from http://arkeolojigazetesi.com/?p=761.
Dissard, L., 2011, ‘Submerged Stories from the Sidelines of Archaeological
Science: The History and Politics of the Keban Dam Rescue Project (1967-
1975) in Eastern Turkey’, PhD, Near Eastern Studies, University of California.
Dissard, L., Rosenzweig, M. & Matney, T., 2011, ‘Beyond Ethics:
Considerations in Problematizing Community Involvement and Outreach in
Archaeological Practice’, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26.2, 59–
70.
Doliche Project, n.d.a, Doliche - Forschungsgeschichte, viewed 30 May 2016,
from http://www.doliche.de/doliche/forschungsgeschichte/.
444
Doliche Project, n.d.b, Mitarbeiter - Doliche & Kommagene, viewed 30 May
2016, from www.doliche.de/tk/doliche/mitarbeiter/.
Doliche Project, n.d.c, Sponsoren - Doliche & Kommagene, viewed 30 May
2016, from http://www.doliche.de/sponsoren/.
Doliche Project, n.d.d, Zu den Arbeiten der Kampagne 2013, viewed 30 May
2016, from www.doliche.de/dueluek-baba-tepesi/kampagne-2014/kampagne-
2013/.
Donkow, I., 2004, ‘The Ephesus Excavations 1863-1874, in the Light of the
Ottoman Legislation on Antiquities’, Anatolian Studies 54, 109–117.
Doughty, L., 2003a, Çatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report-The ‘TEMPER’ Project
in 2003, viewed 8 December 2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2003/ar03_21.html.
Doughty, L., 2003b, ‘Training, education, management and prehistory in the
Mediterranean: Work in progress on a European Union research project’,
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 6(1), 49–53.
Doughty, L., 2004, Çatalhöyük 2004 Archive Report-The ‘Temper' Project in
2004, viewed 8 December 2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_43.html.
Doughty, L. & Orbaşlı, A., 2007, ‘Visitor Management and Interpretation at
Prehistoric Sites’, in I. Hodder and L. Doughty (eds.), Mediterranean
prehistoric heritage: Training, education and management, pp. 43–56,
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Duru, G., 2013, ‘Disipline Edilmiş Bir Disiplin Olarak Arkeoloji’, in O. Erdur
and D. Güneş (eds.), Arkeoloji: Niye? Nasıl? Ne İçin?, pp. xx–xxv, Ege
Yayınları.
Dyson, S.L., 2006, In pursuit of ancient pasts: A history of classical
archaeology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Yale University Press,
New Haven, Conn., London.
Edgers, G., 2011, ‘After years of denial, MFA to return ‘Weary
Herakles' statue to Turkey’, Boston Globe, 23 September, viewed 10 October
2011, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater-art/2011/09/23/after-
years-denial-mfa-return-weary-herakles-statue-
turkey/yhPcDZf9vxwdgkUc97LvrJ/story.html.
445
Ege Postası, 2013, ‘Hierapolis kazılarında İtalyanların 56 yıllık hakimiyeti
sona eriyor’, Ege Postası, 20 May, viewed 1 September 2016, from
http://www.egepostasi.com/haber/hierapolis-kazilarinda-italyanlarin-56-
yillik-hakimiyeti-sona-eriyor/25463.
Egeplan, 2013, Efes Yönetim Planı.
Egloff, B. & Comer, D.C., 2012, ‘Conserving the Archaeological Soul of
Places: Drafting Guidelines for the ICAHM Charter (2009)’, in S. Sullivan and
R. Mackay (eds.), Archaeological sites: Conservation and management, pp.
149–161, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Eğrikavuk, I., 2011, ‘'Made-in-Turkey' archaeological digs raising concerns’,
Hürriyet Daily News, 31 July, from
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=8216made-
in-turkey8217-archaeological-digs-raising-concerns-2011-07-31.
EiSat, 2013, Membran-Schutzdach für Goebekli Tepe, Türkei,
Tragwerksplanung – Entwurf, Statik und Konstruktion, viewed 7 March 2016,
from http://www.eisat.de/allgemein/membran-schutzdach-fur-gobekli-tepe-
turkei/.
EiSat, 2014, Schutzdach 2 für die Ausgrabungen am Göbekli Tepe, Türkei,
Tragwerksplanung – Entwurf, Statik und Konstruktion, viewed 7 March 2016,
from http://www.eisat.de/allgemein/schutzdach-2-fuer-die-ausgrabungen-am-
goebekli-tepe-tuerkei/.
Eldem, E., 2004, ‘An Ottoman Archaeologist Caught Between Two Worlds
Osman Hamdi Bey (1842-1910)’, in D. Shankland (ed.), Archaeology,
anthropology and heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: The life and times of
F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920, 121-149, Isis Press, Istanbul.
Eldem, E., 2011, ‘From Blissful Indifference to Anguished Concern: Ottoman
Perceptions of Antiquities 1799-1869’, in Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik, & E. Eldem
(eds.), Scramble for the past: A story of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire,
1753-1914, SALT, Istanbul.
Eldem, E., 2013, ‘Türkiyede Arkeoloji ve Siyaset’, Toplumsal Tarih 231, 22–
25.
Elliot, M., 2004, ‘European Archaeological and Historical Institutes in Turkey:
An Italian Ambassador's view in 1925’, in D. Shankland (ed.), Archaeology,
anthropology and heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: The life and times of
F.W. Hasluck, 1878-1920, 280-293, Isis Press, Istanbul.
446
Ephesus Foundation, 2010, Foundation Deed, viewed 27 December 2015,
from http://www.ephesus-foundation.org/client/pdfs/foundation-voucher.pdf.
Equini Schneider, E., 1998, ‘1996 Excavations and Research At Elaiussa
Sebaste’, XIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, pp. 391–408.
Equini Schneider, E., 1999, ‘1997 Excavations and Research at Elaiussa
Sebaste, Turkey’, XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998,
pp. 385–402.
Equini Schneider, E., 2000, ‘1998 Excavations and Research at Elaiussa
Sebaste’, 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 24-28 May 1999, pp.
237–248.
Equini Schneider, E., 2001, ‘1999 Excavations and Research at Elaiussa
Sebaste’, 22. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Izmir, 22-26 May 2000, pp.
241–254.
Equini Schneider, E., 2002, ‘Excavations and Research at Elaiussa Sebaste:
The 2000 Campaign’, 23. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 22 May -
1 June 2001, pp. 203–236.
Equini Schneider, E., 2004, ‘Excavation and Research at Elaiussa Sebaste: The
2002 Campaign’, 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 26-31 May
2003, pp. 303–316.
Equini Schneider, E., 2007, ‘Elaiussa Sebaste - Report of 2005 Excavation
Season’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June
2006, pp. 561–574.
Equini Schneider, E., 2008, ‘Elaiussa Sebaste - Report of 2006 Excavation
Season’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June 2007,
pp. 299–310.
Equini Schneider, E., 2009, ‘Elaiussa Sebaste - The 2007 Excavation and
Conservation Season’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4. Cilt, Ankara, 26-30
May 2008, pp. 177–190.
Equini Schneider, E., 2014, ‘Elaiussa Sebaste: 2011-2012 Excavation and
Conservation Works’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Muğla, 28-31 May
2013, pp. 415–427.
447
Equini Schneider, E., 2015, ‘Elaiussa Sebaste: 2013 Excavation and
Conservation Works’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Gaziantep, 2-6
June 2014, pp. 561–574.
Erbil, Ö., 2009, ‘Yabancı kazılara eşbaşkanlık sistemi’, Milliyet, 23 August,
from
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Guncel/HaberDetay.aspx?aType=HaberDetayArsi
v&ArticleID=1131127.
Erbil, Ö., 2016, ‘Efes, Türk arkeologlara emanet’, Hürriyet, 30 October,
viewed 31 October 2016, from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/efes-turk-
arkeologlara-emanet-40263645.
Ercan, S., Patricio, T. & van Balen, K., 1997, ‘The structural restoration of the
Late HelIenistic nymphaeum: principles, laboratory tests and field
applications’, in M. Waelkens and J. Poblome (eds.), Sagalassos IV. Report on
the survey and excavation campaigns of 1994 and 1995, pp. 423–440, Leuven
University Press.
Erciyas, D.B., 2005, ‘Ethnic identity and archaeology in the Black Sea region
of Turkey’, Antiquity 79(303), 179–190.
Erciyas, D.B., 2013, ‘Interdisciplinarity in Archaeology and the Impact of
Sagalassos on the Komana Research Project’, in J. Poblome (ed.), Exempli
Gratia: Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens and Interdisciplinary Archaeology, pp.
119–126, UPr, Leuven.
Erciyas, D.B., 2014, ‘Invisible Change: Archaeological Practices in Turkey in
the New Millennium’, in S. Brennan and M. Herzog (eds.), Turkey and the
Politics of National Identity: Social, economic and cultural transformation,
pp. 270–286.
Erder, C., 1967, Doomed by the Dam: A Survey of Monuments Threatened by
the Creation of the Keban Dam Flood Area. Elazığ 18-29 October 1966,
METU Faculty of Architecture Department of Restoration, Ankara.
Erder, C., 1978, ‘Lessons in Archaeological and Monument Salvage: The
Keban Experience’, Monumentum(17).
Erder, C., 1994, ‘The Venice Charter under Review’, ICOMOS Scientific
Journal, The Venice Charter - La Charte de Venise 1964-1994 (article written
in 1977), 24–31, viewed 23 October 2015, from
http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/.
448
Erder, E.H., Gürsan-Salzmann, A. & Miller, N.F., 2013, ‘A Conservation
Management Plan for Gordion and its Environs’, Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites 15(3-4), 329–347.
Eren, K., 2015, ‘Türkiye’de Klasik Arkeoloji Geleneğinin “İyonya” İmgesi’,
in Ç. Çilingiroğlu and N. Pınar Özgüner (eds.), Değişen Arkeoloji: 1. Teorik
Arkeoloji Grubu - Türkiye Toplantısı Bildirileri / Changing Archaeology:
Proceedings of the 1st TAG-Turkey Meeting, pp. 25–34, Ege Yayınları,
İstanbul.
Eres, Z., 2010a, ‘Tarihöncesi Kazı Alanlarında Koruma Ve Sergileme
Kavramının Gelişimine Kısa Bir Bakış’, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, vol.
8, pp. 119–130, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
Eres, Z., 2010b, ‘Türkiye'de Tarih Öncesi Kazı Alanlarında Koruma Ve
Sergileme Çalışmaları: Sunu’, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, pp. 101–102,
Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
Eres, Z. & Yalman, N., 2013, ‘National Concerns in the Preservation of the
Archaeological Heritage Within the Process of Globalization: A View from
Turkey’, in P.F. Biehl and C. Prescott (eds.), Heritage in the context of
globalization: Europe and the Americas, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ergin, M., 2010, ‘Archaeology and the Perception of Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Eras in Early Republican Turkey’, in S. Redford and N. Ergin (eds.),
Perceptions of the past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine
periods, pp. 13–34, Peeters, Leuven, Walpole, Mass.
Erim, K.T., 1989, ‘Aphrodisias, 1987’, X. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 23-27 May 1988, pp. 277–291.
Erimtan, C., 2008, ‘Hittites, Ottomans and Turks: Ağaoğlu Ahmed Bey and
the Kemalist Construction of Turkish Nationhood in Anatolia’, Anatolian
Studies 58, 141–171.
Ersoy, F.N., 2002, ‘Pamukkale Örenyeri Koruma Yaklaşımları’, Mimarlık
304, 49–50.
Ertuğrul, E., 2016, ‘Siyasi Nedenlerle Yabancı Kazıların Durdurulması
Türkiye İçin Büyük Kayıp’, Arkeofili, 26 September, viewed 27 September
2016, from http://arkeofili.com/?p=17434.
Esin, U., 1993, ‘19. Yüzyıl Sonlarında Heinrich Schliemann’ın Troya Kazıları
ve Osmanlılar’la İlişkileri’, in Z. Rona (ed.), Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi:
449
Sempozyum: 17-18 Aralık 1992, pp. 179–191, Tarih Vakfı Yurt yayınları,
İstanbul.
EUREKA, n.d.a, About EUREKA, viewed 27 December 2015, from
http://www.eurekanetwork.org/about-eureka.
EUREKA, n.d.b, Research and conservation of the theatre at Ephesus
(Turkey), EUREKA, viewed 27 December 2015, from
http://www.eurekanetwork.org/project/id/1384.
European Association of Archaeologists, 1997, The EAA Code of Practice,
from https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA/About, viewed 23 October 2016.
Evers, M. & Knöfel, U., 2013, ‘Museum Wars: Ankara Demands Artifacts
from Berlin’, Spiegel Online International, 14 March, viewed 21 April 2013,
from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dispute-heats-up-between-
germany-and-turkey-over-contested-artifacts-a-888398.html.
Falck, L., 1999, Çatalhöyük 1999 Archive Report-Shelter and Shoring
Constructionl, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1999/ar99_19.html.
Falck, L. & Prime, B., 2011, ‘Planning and Designing the Visitor Circuit’, in
M. Keller and F.G. Matero (eds.), Gordion Awakened: Conserving a Phrygian
Landscape, pp. 48–65, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania; Museum
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
Federal Foreign Office, 2011, The Ernst Reuter Initiative for Intercultural
Dialogue and Understanding, viewed 20 March 2016, from
http://www.auswaertiges-
amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Kultur/InterkulturellerDialog/ERI/Uebersicht-
ErnstReuterInitiative_node.html.
Federal Foreign Office, 2014, Das Kulturerhalt Programm des Auswärtiges
Amts, viewed 23 March 2016, from http://www.auswaertiges-
amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/341712/publicationFile/190876/Kriterien.pdf.
Federal Foreign Office, 2015a, Das Kulturerhalt Programm, viewed 23 March
2016, from http://www.auswaertiges-
amt.de/DE/Aussenpolitik/KulturDialog/Kulturerhalt/Kulturerhalt_node.html.
Federal Foreign Office, 2015b, Foreign & European Policy: Bilateral
relations: Turkey, viewed 23 March 2016, from http://www.auswaertiges-
450
amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/01-
Nodes/Tuerkei_node.html.
Felch, J., 2012, ‘Turkey asks U.S. museums for return of antiquities’, Los
Angeles Times, 30 March.
Filges, A., 2015, Priene, Türkei. Denkmalpflege und Konservierung in einer
'Musterstadt‘: Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2012 bis 2014, viewed 9 January 2016,
from https://www.dainst.org/projekt/-/project-
display/48590#_LFR_FN__projectdisplay_WAR_daiportlet_view_download
s.
Filgis, M.N. & Mayer, W., 1992, ‘Troia - Sicherung und Konservierung der
prähistorischen und historischen Bausubstanz’, Studia Troica 2, 83–103.
Finkel, A., 2011, ‘Turkish tourism drive threatens ancient sites’, The Art
Newspaper, 6 October, viewed 20 October 2011, from
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Turkish+tourism+drive+threatens+
ancient+sites/24682.
Finlayson, B., 2005a, ‘Present and Future of the British Schools, Institutes and
Societies Abroad’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 16, 1–9.
Finlayson, B., 2005b, ‘"Present and Future of the British Schools, Institutes
and Societies Abroad": A Reply’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 16,
22–24.
Fowler, P., 2006, ‘Archaeology in a matrix’, in J. Hunter and I. Ralston (eds.),
Archaeological resource management in the UK: An introduction,2nd edn.,
pp. 1–14, Sutton, Stroud.
Frangipane, M., 1993, ‘Arslantepe-Melid-Malatya’, in Ankara İtalyan Kültür
Heyeti (ed.), Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme: Türkiye'deki İtalyan
Kazıları, pp. 31–69, Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti.
Frangipane, M., 1997, ‘Arslantepe’, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford
encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East, vol. 1, pp. 212–215, Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford.
Frangipane, M., 2010, ‘Project for the Conservation and Exhibition of the
Fourth Millennium Palace Complex at Arslantepe’, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri
Dergisi, vol. 8, pp. 202–207, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
451
Frangipane, M., 2011, ‘Arslantepe-Malatya: A Prehistoric and Early Historic
Center in Eastern Anatolia’, in S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 968–992, Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford.
Frangipane, M., 2013, November, Conservation and exhibition of sites with
mud-brick architecture: the case of Arslantepe, paper presented at the 1st
International Symposium On Archaeological Practices: Principles of
Conservation and Application in Archaeological Sites, Denizli on 2013,
November.
Freccero, A., 2012, ‘Conservation and Preservation at Archaeological Sites -
Labraunda’, in A. Ferrari (ed.), 5th International Congress on "Science and
Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean
Basin", Istanbul, 22-25 November 2011, p. 42.
French, P., 1987, ‘The Problems of In Situ Conservation of Mudbrick and Mud
Plaster’, in H.W.M. Hodges (ed.), In Situ Archaeological Conservation,
Mexico, 6-13 April 1986, pp. 78–83.
Friendly Jr., A., 1970, Nov 03, ‘Turks warn of bar to archeologists if U.S. won't
aid smuggling fight’, New York Times, 1970, Nov 03.
Gates, C., 1996, ‘American Archaeologists in Turkey: Intellectual and Social
Dimensions’, Journal of American Studies of Turkey 2, 47–68.
Genç, U. & Kartal, S.N., 2014, ‘Hizmet Ömrünü Tamamlamış Demiryolu
Traverslerinin Arkeolojik Alanlarda Kullanımının Değerlendirilmesi’, 30.
Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, Gaziantep, 02-06.06.2014, pp. 237–248.
Gesellschaft der Freunde von Ephesos, Ephesos stadtplan, viewed 2
September 2016, from http://www.ephesos.at/grabung/plan/.
Geyre Foundation, n.d., Afrodisias Alan Yönetim Planı, from
www.geyrevakfi.org/vakif/index.html.
Geyre Vakfı, 1987, Afrodisias Kazıları Resmi Senedi, Geyre Vakfı.
Gill, D., 2004, ‘The British School at Athens and Archaeological Research in
the Late Ottoman Empire’, in D. Shankland (ed.), Archaeology, anthropology
and heritage in the Balkans and Anatolia: The life and times of F.W. Hasluck,
1878-1920, 223-256, Isis Press, Istanbul.
452
Gill, D., 2014, ‘The Classical world: Antiquarian pursuits’, in P.G. Bahn (ed.),
The history of archaeology: An introduction, pp. 57–72, Routledge.
Glendinning, M., 2013, The conservation movement: A history of architectural
preservation: antiquity to modernity, Routledge, London.
Global Heritage Fund, n.d., Çatalhöyük, Turkey, viewed 8 January 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what-we-do/projects-and-
programs/catalhoyuk-turkey/.
Global Heritage Fund, Sagalassos, viewed 6 May 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what-we-do/projects-and-
programs/sagalassos-turkey/.
Global Heritage Fund, Sagalassos, viewed 8 August 2015, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what-we-do/projects-and-
programs/sagalassos-turkey/#partnerships.
Global Heritage Fund, 2010, ‘2009 - 2010 Biennial Report: Saving Our Global
Heritage for Future Generations’ 2010, viewed 6 May 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/docs/GHFAnnualReport2010.pdf.
Global Heritage Fund, 2012, Global Heritage Fund Receives $400,000 Pledge
from Vehbi Koç Foundation and $125,000 Pledge from J.M. Kaplan Fund for
Conservation of Göbekli Tepe, Turkey, viewed 7 March 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/news/global-heritage-fund-receives-
00000-pledge-from-vehbi-koc-foundation-and-25000-pledge-from-j-m-
kaplan-fund-for-conservation-of-gobekli-tepe-turkey/.
Global Heritage Fund, 2014, Göbekli Tepe – Developing Tourism & The Urfa
Region, viewed 8 March 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/news/gobekli-tepe-developing-
tourism-the-urfa-region/; http://www.heritagedaily.com/2014/03/gobekli-
tepe/102391.
Global Heritage Fund, 2015, Göbekli Tepe, viewed 8 January 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what-we-do/projects-and-
programs/gobekli-tepe-turkey/.
Goode, J., 2004, ‘Archaeology and Diplomacy in the Republic of Turkey 1919-
1939’, in M. Aydın and Ç. Erhan (eds.), Turkish-American relations: Past,
present, and future, pp. 49–65, Routledge, London.
453
Goode, J.F., 2007, Negotiating for the Past: Archaeology, Nationalism, and
Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1919-1941, University of Texas Press.
Goodman, M., 2002, ‘Site preservation at Gordion, an Iron Age city in
Anatolia’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 5(4), 195–
214.
Goodman, M., 2005, ‘Architectural Conservation at Gordion’, in L. Kealhofer
(ed.), The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians, pp. 215–229, University
of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Göçmen, D. & Tezer, S., 2014, ‘DAI-Modul as an Infrastructural Tool in the
Preparation of Site Management Plans’, in M. Bachmann, et al. (eds.),
Heritage in context: Conservation and site management within natural, urban
and social frameworks, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Gökman, M., 1955, ‘Basma Yazı ve Resimleri Derleme Kanunu ve Atatürk'e
Ait Bir Hatıra’, Türk Kütüphaneciliği 1(2), 111–114.
Göze Üner Architects, Portfolio, viewed 20 December 2014, from
http://www.unerarch.com/EN/index.php/portfolio.
Graduate School for East and Southeast European Studies, 2015, Dr. Edhem
Eldem: The Prehistory of Ottoman Archaeology.
Greaves, A.M., 2015, ‘John Garstang and the Foundation of the British
Institute at Ankara’, in A.M. Greaves (ed.), John Garstang’s Footsteps Across
Anatolia: Anadolu’da John Garstang’ın Ayak İzleri, pp. 127–139, Research
Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Istanbul.
Greaves, A.M. (ed.), 2015, John Garstang’s Footsteps Across Anatolia:
Anadolu’da John Garstang’ın Ayak İzleri, Research Center for Anatolian
Civilizations, Istanbul.
Green, E., n.d., Labraunda: A short history of the excavations, Department of
Archaeology and Ancient History Uppsala University, Sweden, viewed 4
February 2015, from
http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/Research/Projects/labraunda-en/.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., n.d., Assemblage of reconstructed architectural
terracottas and roof tiles, The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, viewed
15 March 2016, from http://sardisexpedition.org/en/artifacts/latw-60.
454
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 1983, ‘Sardis Archaeological Work in 1981’, IV. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 8-12 February 1982, pp. 237–245.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 1986, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research in 1984’, VII.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 20-24 May 1985, pp. 299–310.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 1992, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research in 1990’, XIII.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 27-31 May 1991, pp. 457–470.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 1995, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research in 1993’, XVI.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 30 May - 3 June 1994, pp. 393–404.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 1999, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research in 1997’, XX.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998, pp. 1–14.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2002, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research and
Conservation Projects in 2000’, 23. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara,
22 May - 1 June 2001, pp. 227–234.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2005, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research and
Conservation Projects in 2003’, 26. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Konya,
24-28 May 2004, pp. 81–90.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2006, ‘Sardis’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und
Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 359–
372, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2007, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research and
Conservation Projects in 2005’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June 2006, pp. 743–756.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2008, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research and
Conservation Projects in 2006’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Kocaeli,
28 May - 1 June 2007, pp. 271–386.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2009, ‘Sardis: Archaeological Research and
Conservation Projects in 2007’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4. Cilt, Ankara,
26-30 May 2008, pp. 191–204.
Greenewalt Jr., C.H., 2011, ‘Sardis: A First Millennium B.C.E. Capital in
Western Anatolia’, in S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford
handbook of ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 1112–1130, Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford.
455
Grover, P. & Schaffer, Y., 2007, ‘Protection and Conservation at Excavated
Sites’, in I. Hodder and L. Doughty (eds.), Mediterranean prehistoric heritage:
Training, education and management, pp. 35–42, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Guermandi, M.P., 2012, ‘Italian Archaeology in Africa: The Ardous
Liberation of a Discipline From Colonial Ideology’, in S.J. van der Linde, et
al. (eds.), European archaeology abroad: Global settings, comparative
perspectives, pp. 307–326, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Gür, A., 2007, ‘Stories in Three Dimensions: Narratives of Nation and the
Anatolian Civilizations’, in E. Özyürek (ed.), The politics of public memory in
Turkey,1st edn., pp. 40–69, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, N.Y.
Gürsan-Salzmann, A., 2015, Teens and Tumuli: Cultural Heritage Education
at Gordion, Turkey - Penn Museum, Penn Museum Blog, viewed 21 January
2016, from http://www.penn.museum/blog/world/turkey/teens-and-tumuli-
cultural-heritage-education-at-gordion-turkey/.
Gürsan-Salzmann, A. & Erder, E.H., 2010, ‘A Conservation Management Plan
for Preserving Gordion and Its Environs’, Expedition 52(1), 4–7.
Güsten, S., 2011a, ‘Türkisches Ultimatum: Berlin soll Sphinx zurückgeben’,
Der Tagesspiegel, 24 February, viewed 1 March 2011.
Güsten, S., 2011b, ‘Turkey Presses Harder for Return of Antiquities’, The New
York Times, 25 May.
Güsten, S., 2012, ‘Sphinx und Stele’, Der Tagesspiegel, 27 February.
Haberler.com, 2015a, Arslantepe, Çocuklara ve Gençlere Tanıtılıyor, viewed
12 December 2015, from http://www.haberler.com/arslantepe-cocuklara-ve-
genclere-tanitiliyor-7746939-haberi/.
Haberler.com, 2015b, ‘Aliağa Kyme Arkeoloji Müzesi ve Kazıevi'ne Yıkım
Tepkisi’, Haberler.com, 23 February, viewed 25 February 2015, from
www.haberler.com/aliaga-kyme-arkeoloji-muzesi-ve-kazievi-ne-yikim-
7000226-haberi/.
Habertürk, 2011, ‘Almanya'dan Günay'a uzlaşma çağrısı’, Habertürk, 3 March,
from http://www.haberturk.com/kultur-sanat/haber/606706-almanyadan-
gunaya-uzlasma-cagrisi.
456
Hamilakis, Y., 1999, ‘La trahison des archeologues? Archaeological Practice
as Intellectual Activity in Postmodernity’, Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology(12.1), 60–79.
Hauptmann, H., 1999, ‘Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü İstanbul Şubesi’, in F. Türe
and A. Filges (eds.), Kayıp Zamanların Peşinde: Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü
Anadolu kazıları, pp. 29–39, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
Hellström, P., 1990, ‘Labranda 1988’, XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Antalya, 18-23 May 1989, pp. 341–345.
Hellström, P., 1991, ‘The Architectural Layout of Hecatomnid Labraunda’,
Revue Archéologique(2), 297–308.
Hellström, P., 1993, ‘Labraynda 1991’, XIV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 25-29 May 1992, pp. 123–131.
Henry, O., Andersson, E., Bost, C., Çakmaklı, Ö.D., Commito, A. & Cormier-
Huguet, M., et al., 2015, ‘Labraunda 2014’, Anatolia Antiqua / Eski Anadolu
XXIII, 301–394.
Henry, O., Bilgin Altinöz, A.G., Blid, J., Çakmaklı, Ö.D., Dufton, A. &
Freccero, A., et al., 2014, ‘La Mission Labraunda 2013: Rapport Preliminaire’,
Anatolia Antiqua / Eski Anadolu XXII, 255–325.
Henry, O., Karlsson, L., Blid, J., Hedlund, R., Vergnaud, B. & Hellström, P.,
et al., 2013, ‘Labraunda 2012: Rapport Preliminaire’, Anatolia Antiqua / Eski
Anadolu XXI, 285–355.
Herring, A.E., 2011, ‘Structure, Sculpture and Scholarship: Understanding the
Sanctuary of Hekate at Lagina’, PhD, Art History, University of California.
Hickley, C., 2011, ‘Hittite Sphinx May Return to Turkey From Germany,
Minister Says’, Bloomberg, 9 March, from 10.03.2011.
Hirtenfelder, E., 2016, ‘Ephesos-Ausgräberin plädiert für mehr Verständnis für
Türkei’, Kleine Zeitung, 6 September, viewed 18 September 2016, from
http://www.kleinezeitung.at/kultur/5080959/Interview_EphesosAusgraeberin
-plaediert-fur-mehr-Verstaendnis-fur.
Hodder, I., 1999a, ‘A Response to Yannis Hamilakis’, Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology(12.1), 83–85.
457
Hodder, I., 1999b, Çatalhöyük 1999 Archive Report-Introduction, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1999/ar99_01.html.
Hodder, I., 2000, ‘Developing a Reflexive Method in Archaeology’, in I.
Hodder (ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: The example at
Çatalhöyük / by members of the Çatalhöyük teams, pp. 3–14, McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Hodder, I. (ed.), 2000, Towards reflexive method in archaeology: The example
at Çatalhöyük / by members of the Çatalhöyük teams, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Hodder, I., 2002, ‘Ethics and Archaeology: The Attempt at Catalhoyuk’, Near
Eastern Archaeology 65(3), 174.
Hodder, I., 2009, ‘Mavili's Voice’, in L. Meskell (ed.), Cosmopolitan
archaeologies, pp. 184–204, Duke University Press, Durham, London.
Hodder, I., 2011, ‘Catalhoyuk: A Prehistoric Settlement on the Konya Plain’,
in S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ancient
Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 934–949, Oxford University Press, New
York, Oxford.
Hodder, I., 2012, ‘Çatalhöyük’, Heritage Turkey 2, 35–36.
Hodder, I. & Doughty, L. (eds.), 2007, Mediterranean prehistoric heritage:
Training, education and management, McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, Cambridge.
Hodder, I. & et al., Çatalhöyük 2008 Archive Report, viewed 8 December
2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2008.pdf.
Hodder, I. & et al., Çatalhöyük 2010 Archive Report, viewed 8 December
2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2010.pdf.
Hodder, I. & et al., Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report, viewed 8 December
2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2012.pdf.
Hodder, I. & et al., 2013, Çatalhöyük 2013 Archive Report, viewed 8
December 2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2013.pdf.
458
Hodder, I. & et al., 2014, Çatalhöyük 2014 Archive Report, viewed 8
December 2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2014.pdf.
Hodos, T., 2015, ‘Lycia and Classical Archaeology: The Changing Nature of
Archaeology in Turkey’, in D.C. Haggis and C.M. Antonaccio (eds.), Classical
archaeology in context: Theory and practice in excavation in the Greek world,
De Gruyter, Boston.
Holtorf, C. & Fairclough, G., 2013, ‘The New Heritage and re-shapings of the
past’, in A. González Ruibal (ed.), Reclaiming archaeology: Beyond the tropes
of modernity, pp. 197–210, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, N.Y.
Holtorf, C. & Kono, T., 2016, ‘Forum on Nara +20: An Introduction’, Heritage
& Society 8(2), 139–143.
Howe, M., 1981, ‘Turkey Demands Return of Stolen Art’, The New York
Times, 23 February, viewed 12 October 2015, from
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/23/world/turkey-demands-return-of-stolen-
art.html.
Hueber, F., 1992, ‘Arkeolojik Yapıların Ve Alanların Koruma Ve Restorasyon
Sorunları’, in Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü (ed.),
Arkeolojik Sit Alanlarının Korunması ve Değerlendirilmesi I. Ulusal
Sempozyumu, 14-16 Ekim 1991, Antalya, pp. 37–42, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı
Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü ve T.C. Antalya
Valiliği, Antalya.
Hueber, F., 1994, ‘Konzept zur Konservierung und Prasentation des
archaologischen Denkmals Troia’, Studia Troica IV, 121–126.
Hueber, F. & Strocka, V.M., 1975, ‘Die Bibliothek des Celsus: Eine
Prachtfassade in Ephesos und das Problem ihrer Wiederaufrichtung’, Antike
Welt 6, 3–14.
Human, H., 2015, ‘Democratising world heritage: The policies and practices
of community involvement in Turkey’, Journal of Social Archaeology 15(2),
160–183.
Hürriyet, 2010, ‘Göbeklitepe'de tarihi eser hırsızlığı iddiası’, Hürriyet, 28
September, from http://www.hurriyet.corn.tr/gobeklitepede-tarihi-eser-
hirsizligi- iddiasi-15889400.
459
Hürriyet, 2011a, ‘Bakan'dan Almanya'ya Sfenks Ültimatomu’, Hürriyet, 25
February, viewed 26 February 2011, from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/bakan-
dan-almanya-ya-sfenks-ultimatomu-17115870.
Hürriyet, 2011b, ‘Günay'dan 'Almanya'ya ültimatom' açıklaması’, Hürriyet, 25
February, viewed 28 February 2011, from
http://www.hurriyet.eom.tr/gunaydan-almanyaya-ultimatom-aciklamasi-
17117508.
Hürriyet Daily News, 2011, ‘Germany hits back in row with Turkey over
sphinx’, Hürriyet Daily News, 27 February.
Ian Hodder et al., 2009, Çatalhöyük 2009 Archive Report, viewed 8 December
2015, from
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2009.pdf.
ICOMOS ISC on Interpretation and Presentation, 2014, ICOMOS Survey On
Professional Attitudes Toward Physical And Virtual Reconstructions Of
Monuments And Sites.
IFEA, n.d., Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, viewed 23 October
2016, from http://www.ifea-
istanbul.net/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=38&It
emid=274&lang=tr.
International Museums Office, 1940, Manual on the technique of
archaeological excavations.
Isabella Caneva, Gülgün Köroğlu, Kemalettin Köroğlu, Tülay Özaydın, 2005,
‘2003 Yılı Yumuktepe Höyüğü Kazıları’, 26. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Konya, 24-28 May 2004.
ISHIMOTO, 2015, Kaman-Kalehöyük Archaeological Museum, viewed 13
February 2016, from
http://www.ishimoto.co.jp/e/service/project/turkey21_2006_150.html.
Işık, Ş., 1973, Cıncık: Keban Barajı Öyküsü (Hamit Zübeyr Koşay), Ayyıldız
Matbaası A.Ş., Ankara.
Işıklı, M., 2014, ‘Yükseklerde Arkeoloji Yapmak: Doğu Anadolu
Arkeolojisinin Dünü-Bugünü’, in A. Özfırat (ed.), Arkeolojiyle geçen bir
yaşam için yazılar Veli Sevin'e armaǧan, Scripta = Essays in honour of Veli
Sevin, a life immersed in archaeology, pp. 1–12, Ege Yayınlari, İstanbul.
460
İdil, V. & Bingöl, O., 1984, ‘Kyme Kazısı 1982 Yılı Çalışmaları’, V. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 23-27 May 1983, pp. 269–273.
İstanbul Fransız Anadolu Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 1986, Türkiye'deki
Arkeolojik Araştırmalara Fransız Katkısı: İstanbul Fransız Anadolu
Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, Divit Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık A.Ş.
İstanbul Üniversitesi Prehistorya Anabilim Dalı, 2010, Türkiye Arkeolojisi ile
İlgili Güncel Sorunlar Üzerine Görüş, viewed 17 June 2010, from
http://arkeologlardernegist.org/news27.php.
J.M. Kaplan Fund, 2014, ‘2014 Historic Preservation Grants’ 2014.
J.M. Kaplan Fund, 2016, Historic Preservation, viewed 16 March 2016, from
http://www.jmkfund.org/funds/historic-preservation/.
Jablonka, P., 2011, ‘Troy in Regional and International Context’, in S.R.
Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ancient
Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 717–733, Oxford University Press, New
York, Oxford.
Jansen, C., 2008, ‘The German Archaeological Institute Between
Transnational Scholarship and Foreign Cultural Policy’, Fragmenta 2, 151–
181.
JIAA, n.d., About JIAA, viewed 10 January 2016, from http://www.jiaa-
kaman.org/en/about_us.html#aim.
JIAA, 2014, Recruitment: Archaeological Conservator 2015, viewed 10
December 2015, from http://www.jiaa-kaman.org/en/conservator_2015.html.
JIAA, 2016, Excavation and General Survey in Turkey: Kaman-Kalehöyük,
viewed 13 February 2016, from www.jiaa-kaman.org/en/excavation.html.
Jokilehto, J., 1995, ‘Reconstruction of ancient ruins (Review of Wiederaufbau
by Hartwig Schmidt)’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites
1, 69–71.
Jokilehto, J., 1996, ‘International standards, principles and charters of
conservation’, in S. Marks and B.M. Feilden (eds.), Concerning buildings:
Studies in honour of Sir Bernard Feilden, pp. 55–81, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
461
Jokilehto, J., 1998, ‘International Trends in Historic Preservation: From
Ancient Monuments to Living Cultures’, APT Bulletin 29(3/4), 17–19.
Jokilehto, J., 1999, A History of Architectural Conservation, Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Jones, D., 2012, ‘Turkey seeks to retrieve its lost artifacts’, Deutsche Welle,
26 September, viewed 10 October 2012.
Kamacı, E., 2014, ‘2863 Sayılı KVTVKK'nın Uluslararası Yasal
Düzenlemeler Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi’, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi
Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 31(2), 1.
Karaman, A., 2013, Aphrodisias Antik Kenti Alan Yönetim Planı.
Karlsson, L., 2006, ‘Labraunda, 2004’, 27. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Antalya, 30 May - 3 June 2005, pp. 101–104.
Karlsson, L., 2007, ‘Labraunda 2005’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June 2006, pp. 65–70.
Karlsson, L., 2008a, ‘Labraunda 2004–2007: A preliminary report on the
Swedish excavations (with contributions by Olivier Henry and Jesper Blid)’,
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58, 109–133.
Karlsson, L., 2008b, ‘Labraunda, 2006’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June 2007, pp. 263–272.
Karlsson, L., 2009, ‘Labraunda 2007’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp. 107–118.
Karlsson, L., 2010a, ‘Labraunda 2008’, 31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Denizli, 25-29 May 2009, pp. 355–372.
Karlsson, L., 2010b, ‘Labraunda 2008: A Preliminary Report on the Swedish
Excavations with Contributions by Jesper Blid and Olivier Henry’, Opuscula.
Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 2 | 2009, 1–33.
Karlsson, L., Blid, J. & Henry, O., 2011, ‘Labraunda 2010: A preliminary
report on the Swedish excavations’, Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes
at Athens and Rome 4 | 2011, 19–67.
Karlsson, L., Blid, J. & Henry, O., 2012, ‘Labraunda 2011: A preliminary
report on the Swedish excavations with an appendix by Ragnar Hedlund’,
462
Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 5 | 2012, 49–
87.
Karwiese, S., 1995, ‘1993 Yılında Avusturya Arkeoloji Enstitüsü Tarafından
Ephesos'da Sürdürülen Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’, XVI. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I, Ankara, 30 May - 3 June 1994, pp. 419–424.
Karwiese, S., 1996, ‘1994 Yılında Ephesos'da Yapılan Kazı, Onarım ve
Araştırma Çalışmaları’, XVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 29 May - 2
June 1995, pp. 475–486.
Karwiese, S., 1998, ‘Ephesos 1995-1996’, XIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I,
Ankara, pp. 721–743.
Karwiese, S., 1999, ‘1997 Yılında Ephesos'ta Yerine Getirilen Kazı,
Restorasyon ve Araştırma Çalışmaları’, XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I,
Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998, pp. 607–619.
Kasiske, A., 2013, ‘Archäologie ist Politik’, Deutsche Welle, 29 April, viewed
12 May 2013, from http://www.dw.com/de/archäologie-ist-politik/a-
16765478.
Kästner, U., 2014, ‘1900 Yılına kadar Pergamon Kazılarının Tarihçesi: History
of the Excavations at Pergamon up to 1900’, in F. Pirson and A. Scholl (eds.),
Pergamon, Anadolu'da Hellenistik bir başkent: Pergamon, A Hellenistic
capital in Anatolia,1st edn., pp. 20–35, Tüpraş; Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Kayın, E., 2008, ‘Türkiye Koruma Tarihindeki Kırılmalar’, Mimarlık
343(Eylül-Ekim).
Kaymak Heinz, G., 2008, ‘Arkeolojik Restorasyon Uygulamalarında Görülen
Teori Ve Pratik Çelişkileri’, in TMMOB Mimarlar Odası İstanbul Büyükkent
Şubesi (ed.), 4. Ulusal Yapı Malzemesi Kongresi ve Sergisi, 12-14 November
2008, pp. 460–472.
Keller, M., 2011, ‘Measuring Stability: Construction, Condition, and the
Future of Gordion’s Early Phrygian Gate’, in M. Keller and F.G. Matero (eds.),
Gordion Awakened: Conserving a Phrygian Landscape, pp. 66–105, School
of Design, University of Pennsylvania; Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
Keller, M. & Matero, F.G. (eds.), 2011, Gordion Awakened: Conserving a
Phrygian Landscape, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania; Museum
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
463
Killebrew, A.E. & Lehmann, G., 1999, ‘Interpreting the past: Presenting
archaeological sites to the public’, Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites 3(1-2), 3–7.
kleyer.koblitz.letzel.freivogel.architekten, 2011, Schutzdächer Göbekli Tepe,
Türkei, viewed 7 March 2016, from
http://www.kklf.de/index.php?article_id=3.
Knoll, E., 2009, Grabung auf dem Göbekli Tepe bei Sanliurfa
Südostanatolien/Türkei: Dokumentation Instandsetzung und Aufrichtung
vonPfeiler 37 in Anlage C Sicherungsmaßnahmen in den Anlagen A und D,
viewed 9 March 2016, from http://goebekli-
tepe.de/dateien/KnollBericht/Bericht_Knoll.html.
Koç University: Archaeology and History of Art, n.d., BERMIRAS: Bergama
Kültürel Miras Yönetim Projesi, viewed 4 September 2011, from
http://cssh.ku.edu.tr/tr/arha/faculty_research/5.
Koçak, A., 2011, The Ottoman empire and archaeological excavations:
Ottoman policy from 1840-1906, foreign archaeologists, and the formation of
the Ottoman museum, Isis Press, Istanbul.
Koder, J. & Ladstaetter, S., 2010, ‘Ephesos 2008’, 31. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Denizli, 25-29 May 2009, pp. 321–336.
Koder, J. & Ladstaetter, S., 2011, ‘Ephesos 2009’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 278–296.
Koenigs, W., 1997, ‘Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul’,
in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near
East, vol. 2, p. 150, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
Koenigs, W., Raeck, W., Hennemeier, A., Kienlin, A. von, Lange, T. &
Schneider, C., 2000, ‘Priene 1998’, 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Ankara, 24-28 May 1999, pp. 181–192.
Koob, S.P., Rogers, M.H. & Sams, G.K., 1990, ‘Preserving the 8th century
B.C. Mud Brick Architecture at Gordion, Turkey: Approaches to
Conservation.’, in N. Agnew, et al. (eds.), Sixth International Conference on
the Conservation of Earthen Architecture, Adobe 90 Preprints, Las Cruces,
New Mexico, October 14-19, 1990, pp. 289–294.
Koparal, E., ‘Eşyanın Tabiatı: Arkeolojinin Ürettiği Protez Bellekler ve
Kimlikler’.
464
Koparal, E., 2015, ‘Türkiye Arkeolojisinde İktidar, Mikro-İktidar ve Biyo-
İktidar Odakları’, in Ç. Çilingiroğlu and N. Pınar Özgüner (eds.), Değişen
Arkeoloji: 1. Teorik Arkeoloji Grubu - Türkiye Toplantısı Bildirileri /
Changing Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1st TAG-Turkey Meeting, Ege
Yayınları, İstanbul.
Korfmann, M., 1990, ‘1988 Troia Çalışmaları’, XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
I, Antalya, 18-23 May 1989, pp. 283–304.
Korfmann, M., 1992a, ‘Anıtkent ve Turizm-Troia'nın Bugünkü Durumundan
Örnekler’, in Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü (ed.),
Arkeolojik Sit Alanlarının Korunması ve Değerlendirilmesi I. Ulusal
Sempozyumu, 14-16 Ekim 1991, Antalya, pp. 31–36, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı
Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü ve T.C. Antalya
Valiliği, Antalya.
Korfmann, M., 1992b, ‘Troia Çalışmaları 1989-90’, XIII. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I, Ankara, 27-31 May 1991, pp. 423–446.
Korfmann, M., 1993, ‘1991 Yılı Troia Çalışmaları’, XIV. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I, Ankara, 25-29 May 1992, pp. 381–406.
Korfmann, M., 1994, ‘Troia 1992 Kazı Çalışmaları’, XV. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I, Ankara, 24-28 May 1993, pp. 325–360.
Korfmann, M.O., 2004, ‘Die Arbeiten in Troia/Wilusa 2003’, Studia Troica
14, 3–29.
Koşay, H.Z., Orgun, M.E.Z., Bayram, S. & Tan, E., 2013a, Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Çağlarında Türk Kazı Tarihi, Türk
Tarih Kurumu.
Koşay, H.Z., Orgun, M.E.Z., Bayram, S. & Tan, E., 2013b, Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Çağlarında Türk Kazı Tarihi, Türk
Tarih Kurumu.
Köksal-Schmidt, Ç., 2016, Göbekli Tepe’yi ‘yeniden yapmayalım’, koruyalım,
from http://kulturservisi.com/p/gobekli-tepeyi-yeniden-yapmayalim-
koruyalim.
Krinzinger, F., 2000a, ‘Bericht Ephesos 1998’, 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
2. Cilt, Ankara, 24-28 May 1999, pp. 11–24.
465
Krinzinger, F., 2000b, Ein Dach für Ephesos: Der Schutzbau für das Hanghaus
2 = A roof for Ephesos : the shelter for terrace house 2 = Efes için bir çati :
yamaç ev 2 koruma binasi, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, Wien.
Krinzinger, F., 2002, ‘Ephesos 2000’, 23. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Ankara, 22 May - 1 June 2001, pp. 127–142.
Krinzinger, F., 2003, ‘Ausgrabung Ephesos Forschungsbericht 2001’, 24. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 27-31 May 2002, pp. 491–508.
Krinzinger, F., 2006a, ‘Ephesos’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und
Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 81–100,
Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Krinzinger, F., 2006b, ‘The Terrace Houses in Ephesos: The New Shelter’, in
Z. Ahunbay and Ü. İzmirligil (eds.), Management and preservation of
archaeological sites, Side (Antalya-Turkey), 29 April - 2 May 2002.
Krinzinger, F., 2007, ‘Ephesos 2005’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June 2006, pp. 224–242.
Kurt, S., 2010, ‘Yabancılara kazıları yasaklayabilirim’, Habertürk, 29
September.
Kurul, E. & Şahin Güçhan, N., 2009, ‘Structural and Legal aspects of Urban
and architectural conservation in Turkey: a new institutionalist review through
the EU perspective: unpublished article’ 2009.
Kutlu, B., 2007, ‘Batı Anadolu’daki Arkeolojik Kazılar (1860-1910)’, Istanbul
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı.
Külçür, Ç., 2010, ‘Erken Cumhuriyet Döneminde Eskiçağ Tarihi
Araştırmaları’, Master thesis, Department of History, Dokuz Eylül University.
Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, 2016, Göbeklitepe Örenyeri
Geçici Olarak Ziyarete Kapatılıyor, viewed 15 June 2016, from
http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,162075/gobeklitepe-orenyeri-gecici-
olarak-ziyarete-kapatiliyor.html.
Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü (ed.), 1992, Arkeolojik
Sit Alanlarının Korunması ve Değerlendirilmesi I. Ulusal Sempozyumu, 14-16
Ekim 1991, Antalya, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarını
Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü ve T.C. Antalya Valiliği, Antalya.
466
La Marca, A., 2010, ‘Kyme 2008 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 31. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 4. Cilt, Denizli, 25-29 May 2009, pp. 397–416.
La Marca, A., 2011, ‘Kyme 2009 Yılı Kazıları’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
4. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 368–381.
La Marca, A., 2013, ‘Aiolis Kyme'si 2011 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 34. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 307–318.
La Marca, A., 2015, ‘Eski ve Yeni Görünümüyle Aiolis Kymesi Arkeolojik
Siti’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Gaziantep, 2-6 June 2014, pp. 113–
134.
La Marca, A., 2016, ‘Kyme'deki Kültür ve Kutsal Alanlar’, 37. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Erzurum, 11-15 May 2015, pp. 215–232.
Ladstaetter, S., 2012, ‘Efes 2010’, 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4. Cilt,
Malatya, 23-28 May 2011, pp. 59–91.
Ladstaetter, S., 2015, ‘Efes 2013’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Gaziantep, 2-6 June 2014, pp. 601–616.
Ladstaetter, S., 2016, ‘Efes’in Arkeolojik Alanlarındaki Konservasyon
Stratejileri’, in E. Dündar, et al. (eds.), Havva İşkan'a Armağan: Lykiarkhissa
= Festschrift für Havva İşkan, pp. 541–560, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
Ladstaetter, S. & Zabrana, L., 2014, ‘The Shelter Construction for Terrace
House 2 in Ephesos: A Unique Museum And Scientific Workshop’, in Elena
Korka (ed.), The Protection of Archaeological Heritage in Times of Economic
Crisis, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Laflı, E., 2015, ‘Introduction’, in E. Laflı and S. Patacı (eds.), Recent studies
on the archaeology of Anatolia, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Lagona, S., 1991, ‘1989 Yılı Kyme Kazıları’, XII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
II, Ankara, 28 May 1 June 1989, pp. 211–218.
Lagona, S., 1992, ‘1990 Yılı Kyme Kazıları’, XIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
II, Ankara, 27-31 May 1991, pp. 91–97.
Lagona, S., 1993a, ‘1991 Yılı Kyme Kazıları’, XIV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
II, Ankara, 25-29 May 1992, pp. 309–314.
467
Lagona, S., 1993b, ‘Aiolis Kyme'si’, in Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti (ed.),
Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme: Türkiye'deki İtalyan Kazıları, pp. 143–
174, Ankara İtalyan Kültür Heyeti.
Lagona, S., 1994, ‘1992 Yılı Kyme Arkeolojik Kazıları’, XV. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı II, Ankara, 24-28 May 1993, pp. 1–9.
Lagona, S., 1998, ‘1996 Yılında Aiolis Kyme'si Arkeolojik Kazı ve
Araştırmaları’, XIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, pp. 837–844.
Lagona, S., 2000, ‘Aiolis Kyme'si 1997 Yılı Arkeolojik Kazıları’, 21. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 24-28 May 1999, pp. 217–226.
Lagona, S., 2003, ‘Aiolis Kyme'sinde Yirmi Yıldır Sürdürülen İtalyan
Arkeolojik Kazı ve Araştırmaları’, 24. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Ankara, 27-31 May 2002, pp. 485–490.
Lane, P., 2005, ‘Comment on "Present and Future of the British Schools,
Institutes and Societies Abroad"’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 16.
Le Roy, C., 1990, ‘Travaux Et Restaurations Au Letoon Et A Xanthos En
1988’, XI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Antalya, 18-23 May 1989, pp. 177–
184.
Le Roy, C., 1991, ‘Xanthos-Letoon 1989’, XII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 28 May 1 June 1989, pp. 75–80.
Lévin, S., 2012, ‘French archaeology abroad: a short history of its institutional
and political framework’, in S.J. van der Linde, et al. (eds.), European
archaeology abroad: Global settings, comparative perspectives, Sidestone
Press, Leiden.
Lewis, W., 2016, ‘Past and future: Remembering the BIAA’s history in 2016’,
Heritage Turkey 6, 3.
Lingle, A., 2013, ‘Conservation’, Çatalhöyük 2013 Archive Report, pp. 204–
208.
Lingle, A., 2014, ‘Conservation’, Çatalhöyük 2014 Archive Report, p. 159.
Lipcsei, L., 2006, ‘Conservation Director's Report: 2005 Season’, Anatolian
Archaeological Studies XV, 103–109.
468
Logan, W., 2004, ‘Voices from the periphery: The Burra Charter in context’,
Historic Environment 18(1), 2–8.
Luke, C., 2013, ‘Cultural sovereignty in the Balkans and Turkey: The politics
of preservation and rehabilitation’, Journal of Social Archaeology 13(3), 350–
370.
Luke, C.M. & Kersel, M.M., 2013, U.S. Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology:
Soft power, hard heritage, Routledge, London.
Lynott, M.J., 1997, ‘Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice:
Development of an Ethics Policy’, American Antiquity 62(4), 589–599.
Lynott, M.J. & Wylie, A. (eds.), 2000, Ethics in American Archaeology, 2nd
edn., Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Mac Sweeney, N., 2012, ‘A Land Without Autochthons: Anatolian
Archaeology in the Early Twentieth Century’, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis
(eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East: 12 April - 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL,
London.
Macqueen, J.G., 1970, ‘Preclassical archaeology in Turkey since 1945’, Asian
Affairs 1(2), 139–146.
Madran, E., 1996, ‘Cumhuriyetin İlk Otuz Yılında (1920-1950) Koruma
Alanının Örgütlenmesi-I’, METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 16(1-
2), 59–97.
Madran, E., 1997, ‘Cumhuriyetin İlk Otuz Yılında (1920-1950) Koruma
Alanının Örgütlenmesi-II’, METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 17(1-
2), 75–97.
Madran, E., 2002, Tanzimat'tan Cumhuriyet'e kültür varlıklarının
korunmasına ilişkin tutumlar ve düzenlemeler: 1800- 1950, ODTÜ Mimarlık
Fak. yay, Ankara.
Madran, E. & Bozkurt, E. (eds.), 2008, Korumada Yeni Tanımlar Yeni
Kavramlar: Alan Yönetimi, TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Genel Merkezi.
Magee, P., 2012, ‘The Foundations of Antiquities Departments’, in D.T. Potts
(ed.), A companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near East, pp. 70–86,
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
469
MAIER, 2007, Hierapolis Di Frigia: Pamukkale Cinquante anni di scavi e
restauri / Phrygia Hierapolis'i: Pamukkale Kazı ve Onarımların Ellinci Yılı,
from
https://www.hierapolis.unisalento.it/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ae9d8
db0-4967-499e-9826-b8323f81bf1c&groupId=32464352, viewed 21
September 2011.
MAIKE - Missione Archeologica Italiana Kyme Eolica, n.d., Associazione
Culturale 'Insieme per Kyme - Archeologia nel Mediterraneo', viewed 29 April
2015, from www.kyme.info/joomla/insieme-per-kyme/associazione-culturale-
insieme-per-kyme.html.
Malley, S., 2011, ‘The Layard Enterprise: Victorian Archaeology and Informal
Imperialism in Mesopotamia’, in Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik, & E. Eldem (eds.),
Scramble for the past: A story of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-
1914, pp. 99–123, SALT, Istanbul.
Mangano, D., 2010, ‘The Communication Project: Arslantepe As An
Experimenting Site’, TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi, vol. 8, pp. 208–214,
Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi.
Marchetti, N., 2012, ‘Karkemish on the Euphrates: Excavating a City’s
History’, Near Eastern Archaeology 75(3), 132–147.
Marciniak, A., 2015, ‘Archaeology and Ethics: The Case of Central- Eastern
Europe’, in C. Gnecco and D. Lippert (eds.), Ethics and Archaeological Praxis,
49-60, Springer-Verlag New York.
Matero, F., 2000, ‘The Conservation of an Excavated Past’, in I. Hodder (ed.),
Towards reflexive method in archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyük / by
members of the Çatalhöyük teams, pp. 71–88, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Matero, F., 2006, ‘Making Archaeological Sites: Conservation as
Interpretation of an Excavated Past’, in N. Agnew and J. Bridgland (eds.), Of
the past, for the future: Integrating archaeology and conservation :
proceedings of the conservation theme at the 5th World Archaeological
Congress, Washington, D.C., 22-26 June 2003, pp. 55–63, Getty, Los Angeles,
Calif.
Matero, F., 2012, ‘Resurrecting Gordion: Conservation as Interpretation and
Display of a Phrygian Capital’, in C.B. Rose (ed.), The Archaeology of
Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas, pp. 227–242, University of
Pennsylvania Press.
470
Matero, F. & Moss, E., 2004, ‘Temporary site protection for earthen walls and
murals at Çatalhöyük, Turkey’, Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites 6(3-4), 213–227.
Matero, F.G., 2008, ‘Heritage, Conservation, and Archaeology: An
Introduction’, AIA Site Preservation Program 2008, 1–5.
Matero, F.G., Rose, C.B. & Sams, G.K., 2011, ‘Beginnings’, in M. Keller and
F.G. Matero (eds.), Gordion Awakened: Conserving a Phrygian Landscape,
x–lxxi, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania; Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
Matthews, R. (ed.), 1998, Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years' Work by the British
Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, British Institute at Ankara.
Matthews, R., 2011, ‘A History of the Preclassical Archaeology of Anatolia’,
in S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ancient
Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 34–55, Oxford University Press, New York,
Oxford.
McArthur, G., 2009, ‘Experimentation with locally available clays’,
Çatalhöyük 2009 Archive Report, pp. 143–146.
Mellink, M.J., 2000, ‘Hans Gustav Güterbock, 1908-2000’, American Journal
of Archaeology 104(4), 787–788.
Memurlar.Net, 2012, ‘'İtalyan kazı heyeti Türklerin 4,5 yılda yaptığını 46
yıldır yapamadı' -’, Memurlar.Net, 29 May, viewed 9 January 2016, from
http://www.memurlar.net/haber/236417/.
Mersin Siyaset, 2016, ‘Yumuktepe Höyüğü Ziyaretçi Merkezi Açıldı’, Mersin
Siyaset, 20 October, viewed 1 November 2016, from
http://www.mersinsiyaset.net/yumuktepe-hoyugu-ziyaretci-merkezi-acildi-
46648.html.
Mersin University, 2014, ‘Üniversitemiz Projeleri ÇKA'dan 2014'te de Destek
Kazandı’, 2014, viewed 9 February 2016, from
www.mersin.edu.tr/haberler/universitemiz-projeleri-cka-dan-2014-te-de-
destek-kazandi.
Meskell, L., 2012, ‘The rush to inscribe: Reflections on the 35th Session of the
World Heritage Committee, UNESCO Paris, 2011’, Journal of Field
Archaeology 37/2, 145–151.
471
Meskell, L., 2013a, ‘UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40’, Current
Anthropology 54(4), 483–494.
Meskell, L., 2013b, ‘States of Conservation: Protection, Politics, and Pacting
within UNESCO's World Heritage Committee’, Anthropological Quarterly
87(1), 217–243.
Mighetto, P., Sobrà, G. & Masino, F. (eds.), 2012, Restoration and
management of ancient theatres in Turkey. Method, research, results, Congedo
Editore.
Miller, N.F., 2012, ‘Working with Nature to Preserve Site and Landscape at
Gordion’, in C.B. Rose (ed.), The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal
City of Midas, pp. 242–258, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ministry of Culture, 1989, Arkeolojik Sit Alanlarının Korunması ve
Değerlendirilmesi Projesi, Ankara.
Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2013, Ephesus World Heritage Site
Nomination Dossier.
Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology, 2014, Construction and
Renovation Works for Urban Conservation Area and Göbeklitepe
Archeological Site in Şanlıurfa: Annex II: Terms of Reference, from
https://ipa.sanayi.gov.tr/tr/tendersearch.
Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology, 2016, Cancellation of a Works
Tender Procedure: Construction and Renovation Works for Urban
Conservation Area and Göbeklitepe Archeological Site in Şanlıurfa.
Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology, DG for EU and Foreign Affairs
- Directorate of EU Financial Programmes, 2014, Works Contract Notice:
Construction and Renovation Works for Urban Conservation Area and
Göbeklitepe Archeological Site in Şanlıurfa Project, viewed 14 January 2015,
from https://ipa.sanayi.gov.tr/Files/Attachments/OtherFiles/tender-
2572015170034.DOC.
Miriello, D., Bloise, A., Crisci, G.M., Apollaro, C. & La Marca, A., 2011,
‘Characterisation of archaeological mortars and plasters from kyme (Turkey)’,
Journal of Archaeological Science 38(4), 794–804.
Missione Hierapolis, 2012, Progetto Hierapolis Virtuale: The project "Virtual
Hierapolis" between archeology and virtual restoration, Università del
472
Salento, viewed 13 September 2016, from
https://www.hierapolis.unisalento.it/29.
Missioni Archaeologiche, n.d., Italian archaeological, anthropological and
ethnological missions abroad, viewed 10 January 2016, from
http://www.esteri.it/mae/en/politica_estera/cultura/archeologiapatrimoniocult
urale.html.
Mona Lisl Restaurierung München, n.d., Referenzen, viewed 30 May 2016,
from http://monalisl.com/referenzen.html.
Morezzi, E., 2008, ‘La necropoli nord-est di Elaiussa Sebaste come segno:
conservazione dei suoi valori’, in E. Romeo (ed.), Problemi di conservazione
e restauro in Turchia. Appunti di viaggio, riflessioni, esperienze, pp. 130–138,
CELID.
Morris, M., 2013, November, Integrating Material, Method, Time and
Audience in Site Conservation at Sardis, paper presented at the 1st
International Symposium On Archaeological Practices: Principles of
Conservation and Application in Archaeological Sites, Denizli on 2013,
November.
Mumcu, A., 1969, ‘Eski Eserler Hukuku ve Türkiye’, Ankara Üniversitesi
Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi XXVI(3), 45–78.
Mumcu, A., 1972, ‘Eski Eserler Hukuku ve Türkiye’, Ankara Üniversitesi
Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (AÜHFD) XXVIII(1-2), 41–76.
Naycı, N., 2014, ‘Arkeolojik Alan Yönetiminde Sürdürülebilir Yaklaşımlar:
Aspat (Strobilos) Yönetim Planı Çalışmaları’, METU JOURNAL OF THE
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE 2014.
Neve, P., 1984, ‘Boğazköy-Hattuşa 1982 Çalışma Mevsimi Sonuçları’, V. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 23-27 May 1983, pp. 143–146.
Neve, P., 1987, ‘Boğazköy-Hattusa 1985 Kazı Mevsiminin Sonuçları’, VIII.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 26·30 May 1986, pp. 233–251.
Neve, P., 1998, ‘Restaurierungen in Bogazköy-Hattusa’, in G. Arsebük, et al.
(eds.), Light on top of the Black Hill: Studies presented to Halet Çambel:
Karatepe' deki Işık: Halet Çambel'e sunulan yazılar, pp. 515–525, Ege
Yayınları, Istanbul.
473
Neve, P.J., 1991, ‘Boğazköy-Hattuşa 1989 Kazı Mevsimi Sonuçları’, XII. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 28 May 1 June 1989, pp. 225–240.
Neve, P.J., 1993, ‘1991 Boğazköy-Hattusa Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’, XIV.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 25-29 May 1992, pp. 327–345.
NNC Haber, 2014, ‘Sagalassos Ailesi Büyüyor’, NNC Haber, 19 August,
viewed 18 September 2014, from http://www.nncajans.com/sagalassos-ailesi-
buyuyor/.
Nohlen, K., 1999, ‘The partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan at Pergamon
in Turkey: A German Archaeological Institute project: Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites’, Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 3(1-
2), 91–102.
Nohlen, K., 2004, ‘Anastilosis und Entwurf’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 54, 35–
54.
Nohlen, K., 2014a, ‘Ausbildung von Handwerkern bei der teilweisen
Wiederaufrichtung des Traian-Heiligtums in Pergamon: Bergama Trajan
Tapınağı'nın Kısmi Yeniden İnşasında Zanaatkarların Eğitimi’, in M.
Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage in context: Conservation and site
management within natural, urban and social frameworks, Ege Yayinlari,
Istanbul.
Nohlen, K., 2014b, ‘İmparatorluk Kültüne Adanmış Bir Tapınak: Pergamon
Traianeumu: A Temple for the Imperial Cult: the Trajaneum of Pergamon’, in
F. Pirson and A. Scholl (eds.), Pergamon, Anadolu'da Hellenistik bir başkent:
Pergamon, A Hellenistic capital in Anatolia,1st edn., pp. 508–521, Tüpraş;
Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Norman, N.J., 2005, ‘Editorial Policy on the Publication of Recently Acquired
Antiquities’, American Journal of Archaeology 109(2), 135–136.
Omacan, S., 2009, ‘Arkeolojik alanda yapı yapmanın çok az yolu var; bulup
çıkarmak zorundasınız: Interview by Ayşen Ciravoğlu’, Mimar.ist 2009/3, 32–
42.
Omura, O., 2011, ‘Kaman-Kalehöyük Excavations in Central Anatolia’, in
S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ancient
Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 1095–1111, Oxford University Press, New
York, Oxford.
474
Omura, S., 2010, ‘Museum of Archaeology Kaman-Kalehöyük: Excavation
Strengthens Ties between Countries’, Wochi Kochi Magazine, 2010, viewed 9
January 2016, from http://www.wochikochi.jp/english/special/2010/12/-.php.
Orbaşlı, A., 2013, ‘Archaeological Site Management and Local Development’,
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 15(3-4), 237–253.
Orbaşlı, A., 2016, ‘Nara+20: A Theory and Practice Perspective’, Heritage &
Society 8(2), 178–188.
Orbaşlı, A. & Doughty, L., 2004, Çatalhöyük Management Plan.
Österreichisches Archaeologisches Institut, n.d.a, ‘Final Report - Temple of
Hadrian: Conservation Project 2012 - 2014’ n.d., viewed 9 January 2016, from
http://www.oeai.at/tl_files/img/Dateien/Final%20report_Temple%20of%20H
adrian_en.pdf.
Österreichisches Archaeologisches Institut, n.d.b, Site Consolidation, viewed
18 February 2016, from http://oeai.at/index.php/260.html.
Österreichisches Archälogisches Institut, n.d., The History of the Austrian
Archaeological Institute, viewed 18 February 2016, from
http://www.oeai.at/index.php/history-of-the-institute.html.
Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, n.d., Mission Statement, viewed 18
February 2016, from http://www.oeai.at/index.php/mission-statement-
344.html.
Öz, B.N., 2002, ‘Management of Archaeological Sites: Case Study Magnesia
ad Maeandrum’, Department of Architecture in Restoration, Middle East
Technical University.
Özdoğan, M., 1998, ‘Ideology and archaeology in Turkey’, in L. Meskell (ed.),
Archaeology under fire: nationalism, politics and heritage in the eastern
Mediterranean and Middle East, pp. 111–123, Routledge.
Özdoğan, M., 2001, Türk arkeolojisinin sorunları ve koruma politikaları,
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Galatasaray İstanbul.
Özdoğan, M., 2006a, Arkeolojinin Politikası ve Politik Bir Araç olarak
Arkeoloji, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Özdoğan, M., 2006b, ‘Türkiye Arkeolojisine Tarihsel Süreç İçinde Bir Bakış’,
in Ü. Yalçın, et al. (eds.), Uluburun gemisi: 3000 yıl önce dünya ticareti 15
475
Ekim 2005-16 Temmuz 2006 tarihleri arasında Bochum Alman Madencilik
Müzesi'nde (Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum) düzenlenen serginin
kataloğu, pp. 29–46, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, Ege Yayınları.
Özdoğan, M., 2011, Arkeolojik Kazılar Bilimsel Çalışma mı? Toprak Hafriyatı
mı?, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.
Özdoğan, M., 2014, ‘To Contemplate the Changing Role of Foreign
Academicians in Turkish Archaeology. A Simple Narrative from Scientific
Concerns to Political Scuffles’, Anatolian Metal VI (der Anschnitt 25) 2014,
1–6.
Özdoğan, M. & Başgelen Nezih, 2013, ‘Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve
Arkeometri Sempozyumları (1979-2013) 35 Yılın Ardından Türkiye
Arkeolojisinin Gelişmesine Katkılarına Genel Bir Bakış’, Arkeoloji ve Sanat
143 Mayıs-Ağustos 2013, x–xv.
Özdoğan, M. & Eres, Z., 2012, ‘Protection and Presentation of Prehistoric
Sites: A Historic Survey from Turkey’, Origini XXXIV, 467–484.
Özgönül, N., 2014, Cultural heritage and conservation in Turkey: A review of
the past 40 years (1975-2015): unpublished report.
Özgönül, N., 2015, ‘The Turkish Involvement in the 1975 European
Architectural Heritage Year and its Impact on Heritage Conservation in
Turkey’, in M. Fasler and W. Lipp (eds.), A Future for Our Past. 40th
Anniversary of European Architectural Heritage Year 1975-
2015,MONUMENTA III, pp. 332–348, hendrik Bäßler verlag.
Özgüner, N.P., 2015, ‘Archaeological entanglements: people, places, and
politics of archaeology in Turkey’, PhD, Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences, Boston University.
Öztürk, A., 2014, ‘Restorasyon Uygulamalarının Işığında Aphrodisias'ı Kendi
Bağlamında Anlamak: Jnterpreting Aphrodisias in its own Context from the
Aspect of Architectural Restorations’, in M. Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage
in context: Conservation and site management within natural, urban and
social frameworks, pp. 221–241, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Palumbo, G., 2002, ‘Threats and Challenges to the Archaeological Heritage in
the Mediterranean’, in J.M. Teutonico and G. Palumbo (eds.), Management
planning for archaeological sites: An international workshop organized by the
Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University, 19-22 May
2000, Corinth, Greece, pp. 3–12, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles,
Great Britain.
476
Papoulidis, K., 2010, ‘The Russian Archaeological Institute of Constantinople
(1894-1914): From Its Establishment Until Today’, in S. Redford and N. Ergin
(eds.), Perceptions of the past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine
periods, pp. 187–192, Peeters, Leuven, Walpole, Mass.
Pasinli, A., 2002, ‘Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürü Dr. Alpay Pasinli'nin
Konuşması’, 23. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 22 May - 1 June
2001, pp. III–V.
Pasinli, A., 2003, ‘Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürü Dr. Alpay Pasinli'nin
Konuşması’, 24. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 27-31 May 2002,
pp. I–III.
Pearson, K. & Connor, P., 1967, The Dorak Affair, Michael Joseph, London.
Pernicka, E. & Aslan, R., 2011, ‘2009 Yılı Troia Kazı Sonuçları’, 32. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 245–256.
Pernicka, E., Aslan, R. & Jablonka, P., 2010, ‘2008 Yılı Troia Kazı Sonuçları’,
31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Denizli, 25-29 May 2009, pp. 165–182.
Petzet, M., 2002, ‘Introduction’, ICOMOS World Report 2001-2002 on
monuments and sites in danger, viewed 12 July 2016, from
http://www.icomos.org/risk/2001/intro.htm.
Petzet, M., 2009, ‘International Principles of Preservation’, Monuments and
Sites XX, 9–46.
Pirson, F., 2007, ‘Pergamon - Yeni Araştırma Programı ve 2005 Yılı
Çalışmaları’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June
2006, pp. 493–512.
Pirson, F., 2008, ‘Pergamon 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June 2007, pp. 261–284.
Pirson, F., 2009a, ‘Pergamon - 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları Ön Raporu’, 30. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp. 57–76.
Pirson, F., 2009b, ‘Some Thoughts Concerning the Future Aims and Directions
of the Istanbul Branch of the German Archaeological Institute: Alman
Arkeoloji Enstitüleri Istanbul Şubesinin İleriye Yönelik Amaçları ile İlgili
Bazı Öngörüler’, TÜBA-AR 12, 89–95.
477
Pirson, F., 2011, ‘Pergamon 2009 Sezonu Çalışmaları Raporu’, 32. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 4. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 245–259.
Pirson, F., 2012, ‘Pergamon 2010 Sezonu Çalışmaları Raporu’, 33. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 4. Cilt, Malatya, 23-28 May 2011, pp. 109–134.
Pirson, F., 2013, ‘Deutsche Archäologie im Geist von Izmir’, Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, 10 January.
Pirson, F., 2015, ‘Forschung – Kommunikation – Kulturerhalt. Aufgaben und
Perspektiven des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in der Türkei.
Araștırma – İletișim – Kültürel Miras Koruması. Alman Arkeoloji
Enstitüsü´nün Türkiye´deki Görev ve Perspektifleri’, in Ü. Yalçın and H.-D.
Bienert (eds.), Anatolien - Brücke der Kulturen, Bonn, 07-09.07.2014, pp. 39–
46.
Pirson, F. & Bachmann, M., 2014, ‘Pergamon - 2012 Sezonu Çalışmaları
Raporu’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Muğla, 28-31 May 2013, pp.
354–371.
Pirson, F., Bachmann, M., Emme, B. & Öztürk, A., 2015, ‘Pergamon - 2013
Yılı Çalışmaları’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Gaziantep, 2-6 June
2014, pp. 373–392.
Plets, G., Plets, R. & Annaert, R., 2012, ‘Belgian archaeologists abroad: from
antiquarians to interdisciplinary research’, in S.J. van der Linde, et al. (eds.),
European archaeology abroad: Global settings, comparative perspectives, pp.
67–83, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Poblome, J., Torun, E., Talloen, P., Uytterhoeven, I., Uleners, H. & Claeys, J.,
et al., 2016, ‘Sagalassos'ta 2014 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları’, 37.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Erzurum, 11-15 May 2015, pp. 83–106.
Pollock, S., 2010, ‘Decolonizing Archaeology: Political Economy And
Archaeological Practice in The Middle East’, in R. Boytner, Swartz, Dodd,
Lynn, & B.J. Parker (eds.), Controlling the Past, Owning the Future: The
Political Uses of Archaeology in the Middle East, pp. 196–216, The University
of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Poortman, S., 2013, Göbekli Tepe, Turkey: Project Update – Global Heritage
Fund, viewed 7 March 2016, from
http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/2013/10/22/gobekli-tepe-turkey-
project-update/.
478
Poulios, I., 2010, ‘Moving Beyond a Values-Based Approach to Heritage
Conservation’, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 12(2),
170–185.
Poulios, I., 2014, ‘Discussing Strategy in Heritage Conservation: Living
heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation’, Journal of Cultural
Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 4(1).
Poulios, I., 2016, ‘Gazing at the “Blue Ocean” and Tapping into the Mental
Models of Conservation: Reflections on the Nara+20 Document’, Heritage &
Society 8(2), 158–177.
Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, 2011, Press Release
No: 171 - Turkey to Receive Hittite Sphinx.
Project Troia, 2007, Projektfinanzierung, viewed 27 October 2014, from
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de:80/uni/aft/deu/finanz.html.
Proudfoot, T. & Severson, K., 2010, ‘Stabilization of Walls with Lime-Mortar
Capping’, in C. Rozeik, A. Roy, & D. Saunders (eds.), Conservation and the
eastern Mediterranean: Contributions to the Istanbul congress, 20-24
September 2010, pp. 201–206, The International Institute for Conservation of
Historic and Artistic Works, London.
Pulhan, G., 2009, ‘Yeni Kültür Politikaları Açısından Kültürel Miras’, in S.
Ada and H.A. Ince (eds.), Türkiye'de kültür politikalarına giriş,1st edn., pp.
129–149, European Cultural Foundation; Chrest vakfi; İstanbul Bilgi
Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Pye, E. & Çamurcuoğlu Cleere, D., 2009, ‘Conserving Çatalhöyük, a Neolithic
site in Anatolia’, Archaeology International 12.
Radt, W., 1981, ‘Bergama 1980 Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’, III. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, pp. 35–37.
Radt, W., 1987, ‘Bergama 1985 Kampanyası Ön Raporu’, VIII. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı II, Ankara, 26·30 May 1986, pp. 215–232.
Radt, W., 1996, ‘Pergamon 1994 Yılı Kampanyası Raporu’, XVII. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 29 May - 2 June 1995, 57-73.
Radt, W., 1997, ‘Pergamon 1995 Yılı Çalışmaları Raporu’, XVIII. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 27-31 May 1996, pp. 27–39.
479
Radt, W., 1999, ‘Pergamon: Batı Anadolu'da Antik Bir Metropol Tarihçe-
Kazılar-Restorasyon’, in F. Türe and A. Filges (eds.), Kayıp Zamanların
Peşinde: Alman Arkeoloji Enstitüsü Anadolu kazıları, pp. 129–139, Yapı Kredi
Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
Radt, W., 2004, ‘Pergamon 2002’, 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Ankara, 26-31 May 2003, pp. 251–268.
Radt, W., 2005, ‘Pergamon 2003’, 26. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Konya, 24-28 May 2004, pp. 143–162.
Radt, W., 2006a, ‘Pergamon’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und
Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 279–
288, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Radt, W., 2006b, ‘Pergamon, 2004’, 27. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Antalya, 30 May - 3 June 2005, pp. 89–100.
Radt, W., 2006c, ‘Pergamon: Restoration, Preservation, Presentation’, in Z.
Ahunbay and Ü. İzmirligil (eds.), Management and preservation of
archaeological sites, Side (Antalya-Turkey), 29 April - 2 May 2002, pp. 61–
66.
Radt, W. (ed.), 2006, Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen
Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes internationales Symposion 6.7. August
2004 in Bergama (Türkei), Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Radt, W., 2010, ‘The Museum in Bergama as an Example of Turkish Politics
of Culture and of German-Turkish Collaboration’, in S. Redford and N. Ergin
(eds.), Perceptions of the past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine
periods, pp. 161–186, Peeters, Leuven, Walpole, Mass.
Radt, W., 2014, ‘20. Yüzyıldaki Pergamon Kazıları: The Excavations of the
20th Century’, in F. Pirson and A. Scholl (eds.), Pergamon, Anadolu'da
Hellenistik bir başkent: Pergamon, A Hellenistic capital in Anatolia,1st edn.,
pp. 38–47, Tüpraş; Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Raeck, W., 2003, ‘Die Arbeitskampagne in Priene 2001’, 24. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 27-31 May 2002, pp. 71–84.
Raeck, W., 2004, ‘Die Arbeiten In Priene Im Jahre 2002’, 25. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 26-31 May 2003, pp. 173–182.
480
Raeck, W., 2005, ‘Die Arbeitskampagne In Priene 2003’, 26. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Konya, 24-28 May 2004, pp. 1–10.
Raeck, W., 2006a, ‘Die Arbeiten In Priene Im Jahre 2004’, 27. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Antalya, 30 May - 3 June 2005, pp. 59–68.
Raeck, W., 2006b, ‘Priene’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und
Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 315–
324, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Raeck, W., 2008, ‘2006 Yılı Priene Çalışmaları’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
1. Cilt, Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June 2007, pp. 333–350.
Raeck, W., 2009, ‘2007 Yılı Priene Çalışmaları’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
1. Cilt, Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp. 33–52.
Raeck, W., Mert, H.I. & Filges, A., 2014, ‘Die Arbeiten In Priene Im Jahre
2012’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Muğla, 28-31 May 2013, pp. 53–
72.
Raeck, W., Mert, H.I. & Filges, A., 2015, ‘Die Arbeiten In Priene Im Jahre
2013’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Gaziantep, 2-6 June 2014, pp.
185–206.
Raeck, W. & Rumscheid, F., 2012, ‘Die Arbeiten In Priene Im Jahre 2010’,
33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Malatya, 23-28 May 2011, pp. 73–114.
Ratté, C., 1997a, ‘Pergamon’, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia
of archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4, pp. 259–262, Oxford University Press,
New York, Oxford.
Ratté, C., 1997b, ‘Priene’, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of
archaeology in the Near East, vol. 4, pp. 351–352, Oxford University Press,
New York, Oxford.
Ratté, C., 2006, ‘Aphrodisias’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und
Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 37–48,
Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
Ratté, C., 2008, ‘The Founding of Aphrodisias’, Journal of Roman
Archaeology Supplementary Series 70 Aphrodisias Papers 4, 7–36.
481
Re, A., 2006, ‘Indicazioni programmatiche per un progetto di tutela,
conservazione e valorizzazione del sito archeologico di Elaiussa Sebaste in
Turchia’, in A. Longhi and F. de Filippi (eds.), Architettura e territorio.
Internazionalizzazione e ricerca, Politecnico Torino.
Redford, S., 2007, ‘"What Have You Done for Anatolia Today?": Islamic
Archaeology in the Early Years of the Turkish Republic’, Muqarnas 24, 243–
252.
Reinhart, A.K., 2016, ‘Letter from the President’, ARIT Newsletter, 2016,
viewed 14 June 2016, from
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ARIT/PDF%20News/Spring%202016.pdf.
Restelli, F.B., 2006, ‘A Protective Shelter at the Archaeological Site of
Arslantepe - Malatya’, in Z. Ahunbay and Ü. İzmirligil (eds.), Management
and preservation of archaeological sites, Side (Antalya-Turkey), 29 April - 2
May 2002, pp. 45–49.
Rico, M.T. & Ashley, M., 2007, ‘Sharing In Situ: The North Shelter in
Çatalhöyük, Turkey’, Interpreting the Past? Who Owns the Past? Heritage
Rights and Responsibilities in a Multicultural World: Proceedings of the
Second Annual Ename International Colloquium, Provincial Capitol, Ghent,
Belgium, 22-25 March 2006, pp. 141–147.
Riorden, E., n.d., DAAP Directory: School of Architecture and Interior
Design: Elizabeth Riorden, viewed 2 February 2016, from
https://daap.uc.edu/directory/said.html?eid=riordee&thecomp=uceprof_0.
Riorden, E., 2009, Troy : An Archaeological Site Management Masterplan.
Riorden, E. & Hueber, F., 1994, ‘Plan von Troia 1994 and Troia. Freiliegende
Ruinen und Besucherwege 1994’, Studia Troica 4, 115–120.
Riorden, E.H., 2014, ‘Conservation and Presentation of the Site of Troy, 1988–
2008’, in E. Pernicka, C.B. Rose, & P. Jablonka (eds.), Troia 1987-2012:
Grabungen und Forschungen, pp. 428–519, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH,
Bonn.
Romeo, E., 2008a, ‘Alcune proposte sulla conservazione del sito archaeologico
di Elaiussa Sebaste’, in E. Romeo (ed.), Problemi di conservazione e restauro
in Turchia. Appunti di viaggio, riflessioni, esperienze, pp. 103–116, CELID.
482
Romeo, E., 2008b, ‘La conservazione della catredrale bizantine di Hierapolis
di Frigia’, in E. Romeo (ed.), Problemi di conservazione e restauro in Turchia.
Appunti di viaggio, riflessioni, esperienze, pp. 80–102, CELID.
Romeo, E. (ed.), 2008, Problemi di conservazione e restauro in Turchia.
Appunti di viaggio, riflessioni, esperienze, CELID.
Rose, C.B., 2012, Eric Fulford, FAAR'92, American Academy in Rome,
viewed 25 April 2017, from
http://aarome.org/people/alumni/sof/obituaries/eric-fulford%2C-faar%2792.
Rose, C.B., 2015, ‘Gordion 2013’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt,
Gaziantep, 2-6 June 2014, pp. 491–498.
Rothfield, L., 2009, The Rape of Mesopotamia, University of Chicago Press.
Rutland, F.P., 2014, ‘The Lost Gallery: John Garstang and Turkey – A
Postcolonial Reading’, PhD, University of Liverpool.
Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project, Maps, viewed 18 September
2015, from http://www.sagalassos.be/en/maps.
Sagona, A.G., Atabay, M., Mackie, C.J., McGibbon, I. & Reid, R. (eds.), 2016,
Anzac battlefield: A Gallipoli landscape of war and memory, Cambridge
University Press, Port Melbourne VIC Australia.
Sams, G.K., 1992, ‘Work At Gordion In 1990’, XIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı
I, Ankara, 27-31 May 1991, pp. 471–480.
Sams, G.K., 1996, ‘Gordion Archaeological Activities, 1994’, XVII. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 29 May - 2 June 1995, pp. 433–452.
Sams, G.K. & Voigt, M.M., 1990, ‘Work At Gordion In 1988’, XI. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Antalya, 18-23 May 1989, pp. 77–102.
Sams, G.K. & Voigt, M.M., 1995, ‘Gordion Archaeological Activities, 1993’,
XVI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 30 May - 3 June 1994, pp. 369–392.
Sams, G.K. & Voigt, M.M., 1997, ‘Gordion 1995’, XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I, Ankara, 27-31 May 1996, pp. 475–497.
Sams, G.K. & Voigt, M.M., 1998, ‘Gordion, 1996’, XIX. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı I, Ankara, pp. 681–701.
483
Sams, G.K. & Voigt, M.M., 1999, ‘Gordion Archaeological Activities, 1997’,
XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998, pp. 559–576.
Sams, G.K. & Voigt, M.M., 2004, ‘Gordion, 2002’, 25. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 26-31 May 2003, pp. 195–207.
Sams, K.G., 2005, ‘Gordion: Explorations over a Century’, in L. Kealhofer
(ed.), The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians, pp. 10–21, University of
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Sams, K.G., 2009, ‘Gordion, 2007’, 30. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt,
Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp. 139–150.
Sams, K.G., 2011, ‘Gordion, 2009’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 462–473.
Sams, K.G. & Burke, R.B., 2008, ‘Gordion, 2006’, 29. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June 2007, pp. 329–342.
Sams, K.G., Burke, R.B. & Goldman, A.L., 2007, ‘Gordion, 2005’, 28. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June 2006, pp. 365–386.
Sams, K.G. & Rose, C.B., 2012, ‘Gordion, 2010’, 33. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Malatya, 23-28 May 2011, pp. 501–514.
Sams, K.G. & Rose, C.B., 2013, ‘Gordion, 2011’, 34. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 81–90.
Saraç, D., 2003, ‘History of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage
Management in Turkey and Europe: A Look From the Past to The Present’,
Master of Arts, Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Bilkent
University.
Scardozzi, G. (ed.), 2015, Phrygia Hierapolisi Yeni Atlası VII. Kentin ve
Nekropolislerin Arkeoloji Haritası, Ege Yayınları.
Schachner, A., 2008, ‘Boğazköy-Hattusa 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 29. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Kocaeli, 28 May - 1 June 2007, pp. 167–184.
Schachner, A., 2012, ‘2010 Yılı Boğazköy-Hattuşa Kazı ve Restorasyon
Çalışmaları’, 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Malatya, 23-28 May 2011,
pp. 461–484.
484
Schachner, A., 2013a, ‘2011 Yılı Boğazköy-Hattuşa Kazıları ve Restorasyon
Çalışmaları’, 34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June
2012, pp. 295–312.
Schachner, A., 2013, November, Boğazköy-Hattuşa’da Restorasyon ve
Konservasyon Çalışmalarına Genel Bir Bakış, paper presented at the 1st
International Symposium On Archaeological Practices: Principles of
Conservation and Application in Archaeological Sites, Denizli on 2013,
November.
Schachner, A., 2013b, ‘Hattusha’, UNESCO World Heritage in Turkey.
Schachner, A., 2015, ‘Boğazköy-Hattuša: Rückblick und Perspektiven’, in Ü.
Yalçın and H.-D. Bienert (eds.), Anatolien - Brücke der Kulturen, Bonn, 07-
09.07.2014.
Schmidt, H., 1993, Wiederaufbau, Konrad Theiss, Stuttgart.
Schmidt, H., 1997, ‘Reconstruction of Ancient Buildings’, in M. de la Torre
(ed.), The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region,
pp. 41–50.
Schmidt, K., 2000, ‘Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey: A Preliminary Report
on the 1995-1999 Excavations’, Paléorient 26(1), 45–54.
Schmidt, K., 2006, ‘Göbekli Tepe Excavations 2004’, 27. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Antalya, 30 May - 3 June 2005, pp. 343–352.
Schmidt, K., 2007, ‘Göbekli Tepe Excavations 2005’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June 2006, pp. 97–110.
Schmidt, K., 2009, ‘Göbekli Tepe Kazısı 2007 Yılı Raporu’, 30. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Ankara, 26-30 May 2008, pp. 163–184.
Schmidt, K., 2010a, ‘Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New results
of ongoing excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs’,
Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII, 239–256.
Schmidt, K., 2010b, ‘Göbekli Tepe Kazısı 2008 Yılı Raporu’, 31. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Denizli, 25-29 May 2009, pp. 241–264.
Schmidt, K., 2011a, ‘Göbekli Tepe 2009 Yılı Raporu’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010, pp. 209–224.
485
Schmidt, K., 2011b, ‘Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic Site in Southeastern
Anatolia’, in S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford handbook
of ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 917–933, Oxford University Press,
New York, Oxford.
Schmidt, K., 2013, ‘Göbekli Tepe Kazısı 2011 Yılı Raporu’, 34. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 79–90.
Schmidt, L. & Merbach, A., 2014, ‘World Heritage in Turkey: Questions and
Tasks: Göbekli Tepe as a Case Study’, in M. Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage
in context: Conservation and site management within natural, urban and
social frameworks, pp. 67–87, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Schmidt, L., Merbach, A. & Pant, S., 2014, Göbekli Tepe Site Management
Plan, Department of Architectural Conservation Brandenburg University of
Technology Cottbus - Senftenberg Germany.
Schulz, M., 2012, ‘'Art War': Turkey Battles to Repatriate Antiquities’, Spiegel
Online International, 20 July, from
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/turkey-waging-art-war-to-
repatriate-artifacts-from-foreign-museums-a-845159.html.
Schumacher, A., Misiakiewicz, J. & Koenigs, W., 2007, Priene: Die
Restaurierung des Theaters 1992-1998, Zabern, Mainz.
Schücker, N., 2012, ‘Warum in die Ferne schweifen? An overview of German
archaeology abroad’, in S.J. van der Linde, et al. (eds.), European archaeology
abroad: Global settings, comparative perspectives, pp. 157–190, Sidestone
Press, Leiden.
Seeher, J., 1995, ‘Forty Years in the Capital of the Hittites: Peter Neve Retires
from His Position as Director of the Hattusa-Bogazkoy Excavations’, The
Biblical Archaeologist 58(2), 63.
Seeher, J., 1997, ‘Boğazköy-Hattuşa 1995 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları’,
XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 27-31 May 1996, pp. 323–328.
Seeher, J., 2004, ‘Boğazköy-Hattuşa 2002 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 25. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 26-31 May 2003.
Seeher, J., 2005, ‘Boğazköy-Hattuşa 2003 Yılı Çalışmaları’, 26. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Konya, 24-28 May 2004, pp. 351–360.
486
Seeher, J., 2007a, A Mudbrick City Wall at Hattuša: Diary of a Reconstruction,
Ege Yayınları.
Seeher, J., 2007b, ‘Boğazköy / Hattuşa 2004-2005 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon
Çalışmaları’, 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Çanakkale, 29 May - 2 June
2006, pp. 27–42.
Seeher, J., 2012, Hattuşa'da 106 yıl: Hitit kazılarının fotoğraflarla öyküsü: 106
years in Hattusha: photographs tell the story of the excavations in the Hittite
capital, 1st edn., Yapı Kredi Yayınları; DAI, Beyoğlu İstanbul.
Seeher, J. & Schachner, A., 2014, ‘Bogazköy - Hattusa - Fifty Years of
Restoration and Site Management’, in M. Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage in
context: Conservation and site management within natural, urban and social
frameworks, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Sekiz Eylül Gazetesi, 2016, ‘Efes'te, Avusturya Kazı Evi'nin çalışmaları
durduruldu’, Sekiz Eylül Gazetesi, 1 September, viewed 13 September 2016,
from http://www.sekizeylul.com/haber/efeste-avusturya-kazi-evinin-
calismalari-durduruldu-5892.html.
Severson, K., 1999, ‘Archaeological Site Protection in Turkey’, Field Notes
Practical Guides for Archaological Conservation and Site Preservation
10(Spring).
Severson, K., 2008, ‘Understanding and Preserving the Material Culture in
Sardis’, in N. Cahill (ed.), Love for Lydia: A Sardis anniversary volume
presented to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., 171-185, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., London.
Sevin, V., 2001, ‘1999 Yılı Mersin/Yumuktepe Kazıları’, 22. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Izmir, 22-26 May 2000, pp. 95–96.
Sevin, V. & Caneva, I., 1995, ‘1993 Yılı Mersin/Yumuktepe Kazıları’, XVI.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 30 May - 3 June 1994, pp. 27–41.
Sevin, V. & Caneva, I., 1996, ‘1994 Yılı Mersin/Yumuktepe Kazıları’, XVII.
Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 29 May - 2 June 1995, pp. 71–86.
Sevin, V., Caneva, I. & Köroğlu, K., 1997, ‘1995 Yılı Mersin/Yumuktepe
Kazıları’, XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I, Ankara, 27-31 May 1996, pp. 23–
41.
487
Shankland, D., 1999, ‘Integrating the past: folklore, mounds and people at
Çatalhöyük’, in A. Gazin-Schwartz and C. Holtorf (eds.), Archaeology and
Folklore, pp. 139–157, Routledge.
Shankland, D., 2000, ‘Villagers and the Distant Past: Three Seasons' Work at
Küçükköy, Çatalhöyük’, in I. Hodder (ed.), Towards reflexive method in
archaeology: The example at Çatalhöyük / by members of the Çatalhöyük
teams, pp. 167–176, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge.
Shankland, D., 2010, ‘Afterword: Heritage, Nationalism and Archaeology in
the Republic of Turkey’, in S. Redford and N. Ergin (eds.), Perceptions of the
past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine periods, pp. 225–236,
Peeters, Leuven, Walpole, Mass.
Shaw, W., 2007, ‘Museums and Narratives of Display from the Late Ottoman
Empire to the Turkish Republic’, Muqarnas, 2007, pp. 253–279.
Shaw, W.M.K., 2003, Possessors and possessed: Museums, archaeology, and
the visualization of history in the late Ottoman Empire, University of
California Press, Berkeley, Calif., London.
Shoup, D., Bonini Baraldi, S. & Zan, L., 2015, ‘The Turkish model of
decentralization in cultural heritage’, in L. Zan, et al. (eds.), Managing cultural
heritage: an international research perspective, pp. 45–61, Ashgate.
Shoup, D.D., 2008, ‘Monuments, Materiality, and Meaning in the Classical
Archaeology of Anatolia’, PhD, Classical Art and Archaeology, University of
Michigan.
Siemens Turkey, n.d., Troia: Corporate Social Responsibility, viewed 26
February 2015, from
http://www.siemens.com.tr/web/379,1727/siemens_en/microsite__corporate_
social_responsibility/arts_and_culture/troia.
Smith, R.R.R., 1992, ‘Aphrodisias 1990’, XIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 27-31 May 1991, pp. 141–154.
Smith, R.R.R., 1993, ‘Aphrodisias 1991’, XIV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 25-29 May 1992, pp. 373–383.
Smith, R.R.R., 1995, ‘Aphrodisias 1993’, XVI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 30 May - 3 June 1994, pp. 191–206.
488
Smith, R.R.R., 1997, ‘Aphrodisias 1995’, XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I,
Ankara, 27-31 May 1996, pp. 313–322.
Smith, R.R.R., 1999, ‘Aphrodisias 1997’, XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998, pp. 313–319.
Smith, R.R.R., 2015, ‘Aphrodisias 2013’, 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt,
Gaziantep, 2-6 June 2014, pp. 73–100.
Smith, R.R.R. & Öğüş, E., 2014, ‘Aphrodisias 2012’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Muğla, 28-31 May 2013, pp. 303–327.
Smith, R.R.R. & Öğüş, E., 2016, ‘Aphrodisias 2014’, 37. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Erzurum, 11-15 May 2015, pp. 541–558.
Smith, R.R.R. & Öğüş-Uzun, E., 2013, ‘Aphrodisias 2011’, 34. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 75–102.
Smith, R.R.R. & Ratté, C., 2003, ‘Aphrodisias, 2001’, 24. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Ankara, 27-31 May 2002, pp. 327–330.
Smith, R.R.R. & Ratté, C., 2004, ‘Aphrodisias, 2002’, 25. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 26-31 May 2003, pp. 387–396.
Society of American Archaeology, 1996, Principles of Archaeological Ethics,
from
http://www.saa.org/AbouttheSociety/PrinciplesofArchaeologicalEthics/tabid/
203/Default.aspx, viewed 8 October 2015.
Stanley Price, N. (ed.), 1995, Conservation on archaeological excavations
with particular reference to the Mediterranean area, 2nd edn.
Stanley-Price, N., 1996, Conservation, restoration and visitor information at
Troia, Turkey, 1996.
Stanley-Price, N., 2003, ‘Site Preservation and Archaeology in the
Mediterranean Region’, in J.K. Papadopoulos and R.M. Leventhal (eds.),
Theory and practice in Mediterranean archaeology: Old World and New
World perspectives: an advanced seminar in honor of Lloyd Cotsen, pp. 269–
285, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Stanley-Price, N., 2009, ‘The Reconstruction of Ruins: Principles and
Practice’, in A. Richmond and A.L. Bracker (eds.), Conservation: Principles,
dilemmas and uncomfortable truths,1st edn., Elsevier/Butterworth-
489
Heinemann; in association with the Victoria & Albert Museum, Amsterdam,
Boston, London.
Starzmann, M.T., 2012a, ‘Archaeological fieldwork in the Middle East:
academic agendas, labour politics and neo-colonialism’, in S.J. van der Linde,
et al. (eds.), European archaeology abroad: Global settings, comparative
perspectives, pp. 401–414, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Starzmann, M.T., 2012b, ‘The political economy of archaeology: Fieldwork,
labor politics and neocolonial practices’, in N. Schücker (ed.), Integrating
Archaeology: Science – Wish – Reality, Frankfurt, 12 – 14 June 2012.
Stonington, J., 2013, ‘German Archaeologists Waiting for Dig Permits in
Turkey: Permit Runaround-Politics Slow Archaeologists in Turkey’, Spiegel
Online International, 6 April, viewed 21 April 2013, from
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/germanarchaeologistswaitingf
ordigpermitsinturkeya902913druck.html.
Stovel, H., 2008, ‘Origins and Influence of the Nara Document on
Authenticity’, APT Bulletin 39(2/3), 9–17.
Stubbs, J.H., 2009, Time honored: A global view of architectural conservation,
John Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Stubbs, J.H. & Makaš, E.G., 2011, Architectural conservation in Europe and
the Americas: National experiences and practice, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Studiosus Foundation, n.d.a, Türkei Pergamon, Burgberg: Gymnasium -
Konservierung und Restaurierung, viewed 20 December 2015, from
http://www.studiosus-foundation.org/Unsere-Projekte/Kultur-
erhalten/Tuerkei2.
Studiosus Foundation, n.d.b, Über uns - Studiosus Foundation, viewed 27
December 2015, from http://www.studiosus-foundation.org/Ueber-uns.
Sullivan, S. & Mackay, R., 2012, ‘History: Concepts, Methods and Issues’, in
S. Sullivan and R. Mackay (eds.), Archaeological sites: Conservation and
management, pp. 1–5, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Sumitomo Foundation, n.d., Grant for Projects for the Protection,
Preservation & Restoration of Cultural Properties outside Japan, viewed 13
February 2016, from http://www.sumitomo.or.jp/e/index.htm.
490
Süslü, O.M., 2012, ‘Kazı ve Yüzey Araştırmalarına Nasıl Bakıyoruz?’,
Arkeoloji ve Sanat 140, vi-viii.
Szemethy, H., 2011, ‘Archaeology and Cultural Politics: Ottoman-Austrian
Relations’, in Z. Bahrani, Z. Çelik, & E. Eldem (eds.), Scramble for the past:
A story of archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914, pp. 331–375,
SALT, Istanbul.
Şahin Güçhan, N., 2003, ‘Türkiye'de Koruma Alanının Yeniden
Yapılandırılması Üzerine Görüşler’, in N. Şahin Güçhan (ed.), Her Dem Yeşil
Yapraklı Bir Ağaç: Cevat Erder'e armağan, pp. 113–134, ODTÜ Mimarlık
Fakültesi, Ankara.
Şahin Güçhan, N., 2014, ‘Prologue’, in M. Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage
in context: Conservation and site management within natural, urban and
social frameworks, pp. XVII–XVIII, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul.
Şahin Güçhan, N. & Kurul, E., 2009, ‘A history of the development of
conservation measures in Turkey: from the mid 19th century until 2004’,
METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 26(2), 19–44.
Şerifoğlu, T.E. & Selvi, B.B., 2015, ‘Doğu Anadolu Arkeolojisi ve Çözüm
Önerileri’, in Ç. Çilingiroğlu and N. Pınar Özgüner (eds.), Değişen Arkeoloji:
1. Teorik Arkeoloji Grubu - Türkiye Toplantısı Bildirileri / Changing
Archaeology: Proceedings of the 1st TAG-Turkey Meeting, pp. 121–130, Ege
Yayınları, İstanbul.
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Döner Sermaye İşletmesi Merkez
Müdürlüğü, 2014, Müze Ve Örenyerleri Girişlerine İlişkin Sıkça Sorulan
Sorular, viewed 20 January 2015, from http://dosim.kulturturizm.gov.tr/sikca-
sorulan-sorular.
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı, 2010,
Parliamentary question dated 05.10.2010, viewed 12 May 2011, from
http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d23/7/7-16043c.pdf.
T24, 2011, ‘Bakan Günay: Nemrut heykelleri müzeye kaldıralım - Gündem’,
T24, 2 August, viewed 5 August 2011, from http://t24.com.tr/haber/bakan-
gunay-nemrut-heykelleri-muzeye-kaldiralim,160124.
Talay, İ., 2002, ‘Kültür Bakanı M. İstemihan Talay'ın Konuşması’, 23. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 22 May - 1 June 2001, pp. I–II.
491
Tangianu, A. (ed.), 2005, Dall' Eufrate Al Mediterraneo: Fırat'tan Akdeniz'e:
Ricerche delle Missioni Archeologiche Italiane in Turchia: Türkiye'deki
İtalyan Arkeoloji Heyetlerinin Araştırmaları, Ankara İtalyan Kültür Merkezi,
Ankara.
Tanyeri-Erdemir, T., 2006, ‘Archaeology as a Source of National Pride in the
Early Years of the Turkish Republic’, Journal of Field Archaeology 31(4),
381–393.
Taschner, M., 2014, ‘Milet - Konservierung, Tourismus und
Umweltbedingungen: Milet - Koruma, Turizm ve Çevre Koşulları’, in M.
Bachmann, et al. (eds.), Heritage in context: Conservation and site
management within natural, urban and social frameworks, pp. 253–268, Ege
Yayinlari, Istanbul.
TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2011, Türkiye Arkeolojik Mirasını Bekliyor.
Technical University of Brandenburg/BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg, 2015,
Lehrstuhl Baugeschichte: Fieldschool, viewed 17 January 2016, from
www.tu-cottbus.de/fakultaet2/de/baugeschichte/lehre/httpswwwtu-
cottbusdefakult/seminare-ws-201516/fieldschool.html.
The Ambassador’s Fund for Cultural Preservation, 2002, 2001 Report, Bureau
of Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, viewed
20 January 2016, from http://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/2001afcpannual.pdf.
The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, n.d., About the Sardis Expedition,
viewed 16 March 2016, from http://sardisexpedition.org/en/essays/about-
sardis-expedition.
The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, 2015, Protecting the Past for the
Future | Index Magazine, The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, viewed
11 March 2016, from
http://magazine.harvardartmuseums.org/article/2015/02/06/protecting-past-
future.
The Economist, 2012, ‘Of marbles and men: Turkey's cultural ambitions’, The
Economist, 19 May, viewed 7 December 2015, from
http://www.economist.com/node/21555531/pri nt.
The Japan Foundation, 2009, Arts and Cultural Exchange 2008-09, Author,
viewed 15 February 2016, from
https://www.jpf.go.jp/e/about/result/ar/2009/pdf/ar2009-08.pdf.
492
The Japan Foundation, 2016, About the Japan Foundation, viewed 15
February 2016, from https://www.jpf.go.jp/e/about/outline/about_01.html.
The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2011, Çatalhöyük World Heritage Site
Nomination.
The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2013, Management Plan of Neolithic
Site of Çatalhöyük.
Torun, E., Ceyla, S., Shoup, D. & Poblome, J., 2014, ‘Sagalassos’ta Arkeolojik
Miras Yönetimi Çalışmaları’, 29. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, Muğla, 27-
31 May 2013, pp. 157–164.
Torun, E. & Ceylan, S., 2013, ‘Sagalassos’ta Arkeolojiden Kültürel Miras
Yönetimine’, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 36, 14–16, viewed 3
December 2015.
Torun, E. & Ercan, S., 2013, ‘Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at
Sagalassos’, in J. Poblome (ed.), Exempli Gratia: Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens
and Interdisciplinary Archaeology, UPr, Leuven.
Trigger, B.G., 2006, A history of archaeological thought, 2nd edn., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, from
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0633/2006007559-d.html.
Troia Vakfı, n.d., Vakıf Hakkında, viewed 7 February 2016, from
http://www.troiavakfi.com/.
Tuchelt, K., 1988, ‘Bericht Über Die Arbeiten Der Didyma-Grabung 1986’,
IX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, Ankara, 6-10 April 1987, pp. 77–87.
Tuchelt, K., 1993, ‘Didyma-Grabung 1991’, XIV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 25-29 May 1992, pp. 73–89.
Tuchelt, K., 1995, ‘Didyma-Grabung1992’, XVI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 30 May - 3 June 1994, pp. 341–343.
Türe, F. & Filges, A. (eds.), 1999, Kayıp Zamanların Peşinde: Alman Arkeoloji
Enstitüsü Anadolu kazıları, Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
Uğuryol, M., 2013, ‘The conservation of the mosaic of the “House of the Ionic
Capitals” in Hierapolis (Pamukkale, Turkey)’, Journal of Cultural Heritage
14(3), e125-e132.
493
UNDP in Turkey, Future is in Tourism, viewed 4 December 2015, from
http://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/en/home/operations/projects/poverty_r
eduction/future-lies-in-tourism-support-fund.html.
UNDP in Turkey, 2009, Geleceklerini kendileri şekillendirecek, viewed 4
November 2015, from
http://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/presscenter/news-from-new-
horizons/2009/06/they-will-shape-their-own-future.html.
UNDP in Turkey, 2015, Malatya also said ‘Future is in Tourism', viewed 4
December 2015, from
http://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/en/home/presscenter/news-from-new-
horizons/2015/02/malatya-also-said-future-is-in-tourism--.html.
UNESCO, 1955, International principles governing archaeological
excavations: preliminary report.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, n.d., Archaeological Site of Aphrodisias,
viewed 2 June 2015, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5406/.
Üre, P., 2014, ‘Byzantine Heritage, Archaeology, and Politics Between Russia
and the Ottoman Empire: Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople
(1894-1914)’, PhD, Department of International History, London School of
Economics and Political Science.
Vacharopoulou, K., 2006a, ‘Conservation of classical monuments: a study of
Anastylosis with case studies from Greece and Turkey’, University College
London.
Vacharopoulou, K., 2006b, ‘Debates and Trends on Heritage Management and
Architectural Conservation in the Mediterranean Region: The Issue of the
Driving Forces Behind Conservation Planning’, in J. Day, et al. (eds.), SOMA
2004: Symposium on Mediterranean archaeology : proceedings of the eighth
annual meeting of postgraduate researchers.
van den Dries, M., 2015, ‘From Malta to Faro, how far have we come? Some
facts and figures on public engagement in the archaeological heritage sector in
Europe’, in P.A.C. Schut, D. Scharff, & L.C.d. Wit (eds.), Setting the agenda:
Giving new meaning to the European archaeological heritage, pp. 45–55.
van den Dries, M., Slappendel, C. & van der Linde, S., 2012, ‘Dutch
archaeology abroad: from treasure hunting to local community engagement’,
in S.J. van der Linde, et al. (eds.), European archaeology abroad: Global
settings, comparative perspectives, pp. 125–156, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
494
van der Linde, S.J., van den Dries, M.H., Schlanger, N. & Slappendel, C.G.
(eds.), 2012, European archaeology abroad: Global settings, comparative
perspectives, Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Vandeput, L., 2008, ‘The British Institute at Ankara: 60 years young’,
Anatolian Studies 58, 1–14.
Vandeput, L., 2011, ‘Letter from the Director’, Heritage Turkey 1, 2.
Vandeput, L. & Köse, V., 2012, ‘Cultural Heritage’, Heritage Turkey 2, 33–
35.
Vatan, 2011, ‘Almanya İadeye Yanaşmıyor’, Vatan, 26 February, viewed 27
February 2011, from http://www.gazetevatan.com/almanya-iadeye-
yanasmiyor--361935-gundem/.
Velioglu, E., Bandle, A.L. & Renold, M.-A., 2013, Case Troy Gold - Turkey
and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Platform ArThemis (http://unige.ch/art-adr), Art-LawCentre,
University of Geneva.
Voigt, M.M., 2011, ‘Gordion: The Changing Political and Economic Roles of
a First Millennium B.C.E. City’, in S.R. Steadman and J.G. McMahon (eds.),
The Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia, 10,000-323 B.C.E, pp. 1069–1094,
Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
Waelkens, M., n.d.a, Interactive Dig Sagalassos - Anastylosis Projects -
Antonine Nymphaeum: Introduction, viewed 17 March 2013, from
http://interactive.archaeology.org/sagalassos/field06/antnymph1.html.
Waelkens, M., n.d.b, Interactive Dig Sagalassos - Anastylosis Projects -
Northwest Heroon: Introduction, viewed 20 March 2012, from
http://interactive.archaeology.org/sagalassos/field06/heroon1.html.
Waelkens, M., 2004, ‘Report on the 2002 Excavation and Restoration
Campaign at Sagalassos’, 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1. Cilt, Ankara, 26-31
May 2003, pp. 215–230.
Waelkens, M., 2006, ‘Sagalassos’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und
Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes und Erreichtes
internationales Symposion 6.7. August 2004 in Bergama (Türkei), pp. 325–
358, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul.
495
Waelkens, M., Ercan, S. & Torun, E., 2006, ‘Principles of Archaeological
Management at Sagalassos’, in Z. Ahunbay and Ü. İzmirligil (eds.),
Management and preservation of archaeological sites, Side (Antalya-Turkey),
29 April - 2 May 2002, pp. 67–77.
Waelkens, M. & et. al., 2011, ‘Sagalassos 2008 ve 2009 Kazı ve Restorasyon
Sezonları’, 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Istanbul, 24-28 May 2010,
pp. 263–281.
Waelkens, M. & et. al., 2012, ‘Sagalassos 2010 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon
Çalışmaları’, 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Malatya, 23-28 May 2011,
pp. 239–265.
Waelkens, M. & et. al., 2013, ‘Sagalassos 2011 Kazı ve Restorasyon Sezonu’,
34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, Çorum, 28 May 1 June 2012, pp. 139–
158.
Waelkens, M. & et. al., 2014, ‘Sagalassos'ta 2012 Yılı Kazı ve Restorasyon
Çalışmaları’, 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt, Muğla, 28-31 May 2013,
pp. 242–260.
Waelkens, M., Vermeersch, P.M., Öztürk, İ. & Ekinci, H.A., 1999, ‘The 1997
Excavation Campaign at Sagalassos and Dereköy’, XX. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı II, Tarsus, 25-29 May 1998, pp. 283–311.
Wharton, G., 2005, ‘Conservation Director's Report 2004 Season’, Anatolian
Archaeological Studies XIV (Kaman Kalehöyük 14), 97–100.
Wharton, G., 2010, ‘Research and training in a field conservation laboratory:
Kaman-Kalehöyük’, in E. Williams and C. Peachey (eds.), The conservation
of archaeological materials: Current trends and future directions, pp. 33–39,
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Whittemore, T., 1943, ‘Archaeology during the Republic in Turkey’, American
Journal of Archaeology 47(2), 164–170.
Willems, W.J.H., 2007, ‘The work of making Malta: The Council of Europe's
archaeology and planning committee 1988–1996’, European Journal of
Archaeology 10(1), 57–71.
Wiser, G., 2011, ‘Germany to return ancient sphinx to Turkey’, Deutsche
Welle, 10 March, viewed 11 March 2011, from
http://www.dw.com/en/germanytoreturnancientsphinxtoturkey/a646515
5.
496
Wood, J., 1994, Buildings archaeology: Applications in practice, Oxbow
Books, Oxford.
World Monuments Fund, 1996, World Monuments Fund: The First Thirty
Years, viewed 11 January 2016, from
http://209.68.16.34/pdf/pubs_wmf30th_ann_1965.pdf.
World Monuments Fund, 1999, Kress Foundation European Preservation
Program 1987-1999, World Monuments Fund, New York.
World Monuments Fund, 2015a, Cathedral of Mren, viewed 4 May 2016, from
https://www.wmf.org/project/cathedral-mren.
World Monuments Fund, 2015b, Çatalhöyük Archaeological Site, viewed 4
May 2016, from
https://www.wmf.org/project/%C3%A7atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk-
archaeological-site.
World Monuments Fund, 2015c, Ephesos Archaeological Site, viewed 4 May
2016, from https://www.wmf.org/project/ephesos-archaeological-site.
www.haberciniz.biz, 2009, ‘Kültür ve Turizm Bakanı Ertuğrul Günay
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi'ni Ziyaret Etti - Kütahya’, www.haberciniz.biz, 12
October, viewed 26 May 2016, from http://haberciniz.biz/kultur-ve-turizm-
bakani-ertugrul-gunay-dumlupinar-universitesini-ziyaret-etti-kutahy-
708144h.htm.
Yağmur, A., 2014, ‘Tanıtım Tamam, Ya Koruma?’, Mersin İmece Gazetesi,
20 June, viewed 1 December 2014.
Yardımcı, N., 1984, ‘Eski Eserler Ve Müzeler Genel Müdürü Dr. Nurettin
Yardımcrnın Konuşması’, V. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 23-27 May
1983, pp. 9–11.
Yardımcı, N., 2006, ‘Arkeolojide Devlet Ne Yapıyor?’, in N. Başgelen (ed.),
Toprağın altındaki geçmiş: Arkeoloji sorunlar, öneriler, kazılar, pp. 15–17,
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Galatasaray İstanbul.
Yegul, F.K., 1976, ‘The Marble Court of Sardis and Historical
Reconstruction’, Journal of Field Archaeology 3(2), 169–194.
Yegül, F.K., 2010, ‘From the Lofty Halls of Academia to the Dusty Hills of
Anatolia: Howard Crosby Butler and the First Sardis Expedition through Peace
and War, 1909-1926’, in S. Redford and N. Ergin (eds.), Perceptions of the
497
past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine periods, pp. 57–100,
Peeters, Leuven, Walpole, Mass.
Yeni Asır, 2010a, ‘Günay, Kaçırılan Tarihi Eserlerin Peşine Düştü’, Yeni Asır,
4 August.
Yeni Asır, 2010b, ‘Arkeolojik Kazılarla İlgili Durdurma Düşünmüyoruz’,
Yeni Asır, 12 August.
Yon, M., 1997, ‘French Archaeological Missions’, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The
Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East, pp. 344–346, Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford.
Yoshida, M. & Winter, E., 2012, ‘An approach to sustainable conservation and
care concepts for archaeological sites in Dülük and on Dülük Baba Tepesi
(Gaziantep)’, in A. Ferrari (ed.), 5th International Congress on "Science and
Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean
Basin", Istanbul, 22-25 November 2011.
Yoshida Conservation, n.d., Beratung und Dienstleistung, viewed 30 May
2016, from https://www.yoshida-conservation.eu/projekte/beratung-und-
dienstleistung/.
Zaman, 2006, ‘Yabancı Ekiplere Denetim Sıkılaşıyor 'Kaz-Kaç' Devri
Bitiyor’, Zaman, 3 April.
498
499
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name: Bilge Nilgün Öz Wood
Nationality: Turkish
E-mail: bnlgnoz@yahoo.com
EDUCATION
PhD in Conservation of Cultural Heritage, 2017, METU
Title: Conservation Practices at Foreign-run Archaeological
Excavations in Turkey: A Critical Review
Master of Science in Restoration, 2002, METU
Title: Management of Archaeological Sites, Case Study: Magnesia
ad Maeandrum
Bachelor of Architecture, 1998, METU
RESEARCH
BIAA-RCAC Fellow in Cultural Heritage Management, 2015-2016
Joint fellowship given by the British Institute at Ankara and the
Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (RCAC) of Koç University
in Istanbul. Project: Çaltılar Höyük Archaeological Management Plan
(CHAMP)
Honorary Research Assistant, 2014-2016
Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of
Liverpool
500
Visiting Research Fellow, 2010-2011
School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of
Liverpool
WORK EXPERIENCE
Heritage consultant, 2011-
Kommagene Nemrut WHS Conservation and Development Programme, 2008-
2010 (Assistant Secretary General)
The Chamber of Architects of Turkey, Ankara Branch, 2007-2008 (Assistant
Secretary / Coordinator of the Urban Monitoring Centre)
KA.BA Conservation of Historic Buildings - Architecture Ltd, 2001-2007
(Conservation architect)
Middle East Technical University, Department of Architecture, 2000-2001
(Part-time Project Researcher for the “Reassessment of Pamukkale/Hierapolis
WHS Conservation Plan”)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK
Yalburt Yaylası Archaeological Landscape Research Project, directed by
Ömür Harmanşah, 2012-2015
Nysa Archaeological Excavation, directed by Hakan Öztaner, 2013
Ilısu Dam, Gre Amer Archaeological Rescue Excavation, directed by Gül
Pulhan, 2012-2013
Çaltılar Archaeological Research Project, directed by Nicoletta Momigliano,
2010
Various sites including Aspendos and Hasankeyf, for KA.BA Ltd, 2002-2006
501
Magnesia Archaeological Excavation, directed by Orhan Bingöl, 1998-2001
Xanthos Archaeological Excavation, directed by Jacques des Courtils, 1998
PUBLICATIONS
Edited books
Öz, B. N. (ed.), 2008. “Ankara’nın Geleceğini Tasarlamak – Kentin Kültür
Katmanları 1: Roma Dönemi”. The Chamber of Architects of Turkey, Ankara
Branch.
Öz, B. N. (ed.), 2008. “Ankara’nın Geleceğini Tasarlamak – Kentin Kültür
Katmanları 2: Türk-İslam Dönemi”. The Chamber of Architects of Turkey,
Ankara Branch.
Translated books
Öz, B. N. (translator), 2017. “Kırmızı Figürlü Atina Vazoları: Klasik Dönem”
(Athenian Red Figure Vases: Classical Period by John Boardman). Homer
Books, Istanbul.
Chapters in books
Wood J., Öz, B. N. 2017. ‘The Turkish Amusement Park: Modernity, Identity
and Cultural Change in the Early Republic’, in Jason Wood (ed), The
Amusement Park: History, Culture and the Heritage of Pleasure. Abingdon,
Routledge, pp. 98-119.
Yıldırım, E., Öz, B.N., 2005. “An Evaluation of the Common Cultural Heritage
Project Workshops”, EU sponsored “Common Cultural Heritage Project”
Publication, pp.260-265.
Articles in conference proceedings
Öz, B. N., 2006. “Challenges for Cultural Heritage Conservation in Turkey”,
Conservation in Changing Societies: Heritage and Development, Leuven –
Belgium, s.153-160, Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation.
502
Öz, B. N., Özgönül, N., 2004. “Information Management for the Conservation
of Archaeological Sites - Considerations for a Site in Western Anatolia”, CAA
Enter-the-Past Conference, Vienna – Austria, s.158-161, BAR International
Series 1227.
Öz, B. N., Özgönül, N., 2003. “Management of Archaeological Sites, Case
Study: Magnesia ad Maeandrum”, Proceedings of the XVI International
Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, USA, s.534-537, Oxbow Books.
Reviews in refereed journals
Öz, B. N., 2009. “Istanbul’un Deniz Hamamları ve Plajları” Sea hamams and
beaches of Istanbul, Journal of Tourism History 1: 2, pp.171-173.
Articles in professional and popular magazines
Wood J., B. N. Öz, 2012 ‘Ephesus: The World’s Biggest Jigsaw Puzzle’,
Current World Archaeology 52, pp.21-23.
Şahin Güçhan, N., Öz, B.N., 2008. “Nemrut Dağı Tümülüsü”, Aktüel
Arkeoloji Dergisi, Issue: 9.
Öz, B. N., 2008. “Tarihi Çevre Korumada Katılımcılık ve Bilinç”, Bulletin of
The Chamber of Architects of Turkey, Ankara Branch.
Şimşek Kuran, G., Öz, B.N., 2005. “Çocuk ve Kültür Mirası”, Çocuk ve
Mimarlık Dergisi, The Chamber of Architects of Turkey, Ankara Branch.
Yıldırım, E., Öz, B.N., 2005. “Kültürel ve Doğal Çevre Korumasında Yeni Bir
Fırsat: Kayakapı Projesi”, Yeni Mimar Gazetesi.
CONFERENCE / SEMINAR PRESENTATIONS
“Living Next to a ‘höyük’: Relations/Connections of a Rural Community with
‘Archaeological/Cultural Heritage’”, RCAC Fellows’ Symposium, Istanbul,
2016.
503
“Çaltılar Höyük Archaeological Management Plan”, British Institute at
Ankara, Ankara, 2016.
“Community Engagement as a Form of Landscape Research and
Conservation”, New Approaches to Historic Landscapes Workshop, Mimar
Sinan University, Istanbul, 2016.
“Towards a Common Ground: Digital Data and Community Engagement in
Turkey”, EAA 21st Annual Meeting in Glasgow, 2015.
“Heritage Conservation at Foreign-Run Archaeological Excavations in
Turkey”, EAA 20th Annual Meeting in Istanbul, 2014.
“Impacts of Public Outreach in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Çaltılar
Village in Fethiye”, as part of the EU funded “Illuminating the Land of Lights”
project run by the University of Liverpool, Liverpool, 2013.
“Archaeology and the collective imagination(s) of a rural community in
Turkey: Caltilar Archaeological Project”, University of Liverpool, School of
Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, 2011.
“A challenging task: caring for the past in Turkey”, Bristol University,
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2010.
“Recent developments and their impacts on the conservation of archaeological
sites in Turkey”, WOCMES Congress, Barcelona, 2010.
“Making a Splash! The transformation of the Turkish seaside in the early
Republic period”, Resorting to the Coast: Tourism, Heritage and Cultures of
the Seaside, International Conference, Blackpool, 2009.
“New Perspectives for Heritage Conservation in Turkey”, Localising the
Global - Archaeological Resource Management: Participatory processes,
ethical conduct and sustaining communities, Institute of Archaeology at UCL,
2008.
504
“The Future of Traditional Settlements in Cappadocia” (poster), Rehabimed
1st Euro-Mediterranean Regional Conference: Traditional Mediterranean
Architecture, Present and Future, Barcelona, 2007.
“Changing Trends in Cultural Heritage Conservation: The Turkish
Perspective”, The Future of Heritage: Changing Visions, Attitudes, and
Contexts in the 21st Century (3rd Annual Ename International Colloquium),
Ghent, 2007.
MAIN INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
ICOMOS Turkey
ICOMOS/ICAHM (The International Scientific Committee on Archaeological
Heritage Management)
The Chamber of Architects of Turkey, Ankara Branch
Conservation and Restoration Specialists Association in Turkey
GRANTS
Doctoral Grant (2000 EUR), 2012, Suna-İnan Kıraç Research Institute on
Mediterranean Civilizations (AKMED), Turkey